Criminal Adaptations
Criminal Adaptations is a True Crime/Movie Review Podcast discussing some of your favorite films, and the true crime stories that inspired them. With hosts Remi, who spent over a decade working in the film and television industry, and Ashley, a clinical psychologist and forensic evaluator. They discuss a new movie each week and compare the film to the real life events that the film is based on.
Criminal Adaptations
Inherit the Wind
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
This week we travel back in time to one of the most famous courtroom battles in American history as we compare Stanley Kramer’s Inherit the Wind (1960) to the Scopes “Monkey” Trial. The film presents a dramatic showdown between science and religion, featuring unforgettable performances from Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly – but how closely does it follow the events the inspired it? We examine the true story of teacher John Scopes, the Tennessee law that prohibited the teaching of evolution, and the legal battle that brought two of the nation’s most celebrated figures into the courtroom. Along the way, we uncover the liberties the film takes with the facts, explore how the movie’s themes were shaped by the political climate of its time, and discuss whether Inherit the Wind is better understood as history, allegory, or something in between.
Primary Source:
- Larson, Edward. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. Basic Books (2006).
Instagram: @CriminalAdaptations
Email us: criminaladaptations@gmail.com
TikTok: @criminaladaptations
YouTube: @criminaladaptations
X: x.com/CriminalAdapt
Theme: DARKNESS (feat. EdKara) by Ghost148
Welcome To Criminal Adaptations
AshleyWelcome to Criminal Adaptations, where we take a look at some of your favorite movies and the true crime stories that inspired them. I'm Ashley, a clinical psychologist and forensic evaluator in the state of Oregon.
RemiAnd I'm Remy. I spent over a decade working in the film and television industry in Los Angeles, California.
AshleyAnd welcome back, everyone. We hope you are having a fun-filled summer complete with every sort of activity that you could ever dream of. It has been hot as hell over here in Portland, but not as hot as it was during the trial of the story we are going to talk about today. How are you doing, Remy?
RemiI have to admit, this heat has been killing me, but it does seem oddly appropriate for the film we are discussing today, which is Inherit the Wind, a 1960s film, which is about the Scopes monkey trial. Do you know anything about this monkey trial, Ashley?
AshleyWell, now I know a whole lot about it. I also want to correct something I said at the end of our last episode. I had said that this was a civil case. It is not. It is an actual criminal trial about a school teacher who was charged with the misdemeanor for teaching evolution in school in 1925. And fun fact, I don't think you even know this from me. We are filming this episode on the 101st anniversary of the verdict.
RemiI must say, before I started researching this episode, I had not heard of the Scopes monkey trial or Inherit the Wind. I think I had heard the name somewhere, but I didn't really have the slightest idea what it was about. Had you heard of any of this stuff before we got into this episode?
AshleyI definitely hadn't. And this movie or story even came to my attention just by Googling movies that were inspired by true crime stories. But it is really funny because last weekend my mom asked us if we were gonna cover this, and we were like, not only that, mother, we are doing it next week.
RemiAnd my draw to this film was the fact that it stars Gene Kelly. This is the only time we're ever gonna get to talk about him, and he performs probably my favorite musical number of any film ever.
E.K. HornbeckUm singing in the rain. Yes, singing in the rain. What a glorious feel, and I'm happy again.
AshleyI was worried about what your reception was going to be to it because you kind of went into it thinking that it wasn't gonna be your favorite movie in the world to watch. But as you were going through it, I heard some genuine belly laughs from you. So I'm stoked and I have a feeling Inherit the Wind has grown on you.
RemiI am not typically drawn to older films like this, especially not older courtroom dramas, but this film is surprisingly well written. The dialogue is extremely colorful, as you will hear when I get into my portion and play some clips. And the way that some of the characters just talked and reacted almost reminded me of Simpson's characters, and I was just tickled by the whole thing. So that is probably all of the laughter you heard coming from me downstairs.
AshleyAnd I have not seen this courtroom drama, but I did see 12 Angry Men, and I've said this to you several times throughout the past few weeks. That movie's great.
RemiAnd it is probably the biggest blind spot in my movie history. I have never seen 12 Angry Men. It is one of the most well-regarded films of all time, and I've literally never met a single person who had anything bad to say about it, and for some reason I just never got around to seeing it. So maybe we should check that out this week, Ashley. I think I'm overdue.
AshleyDidn't we look it up a few days ago? And it actually is the top-ranking movie on IMDb.
RemiIt is not the top-ranking movie, but it is amongst the top-ranking movies. Shawshank Redemption is still the highest-rated film on all of IMDB and has been the champion for many decades now.
AshleyOkay, I think I had you read the top five, and Twelve Anger Men was there. I think it was maybe three.
RemiNow, this movie had me thinking a lot about school because it's all about a science teacher that is put on trial for teaching his students. Now, Ashley, when you were growing up, do you remember if you were taught evolution in school? Or was creationism ever part of the conversation? What were you taught as a youngster?
AshleyThe biblical account of creationism was definitely not a subject in school, and now it cannot be unless you go to a private institution. We definitely learned about evolution. I remember learning about Charles Darwin, and there's another guy before him whose name begins with an L. And I remember his theory had something to do with giraffes in their long necks.
RemiI believe I was taught about Darwin in school as well, but it was so long ago, I honestly don't remember exactly what age I was when I learned all this. Surprisingly, I think it was around the same time I learned about creationism. I was not raised in an extremely
First Impressions Of The Film
Remireligious household, so I think I ended up learning about both of these things around the same time. But enough monking around. Ashley, are you ready to see how Inherit the Wind evolved from a Broadway play into a Hollywood classic?
AshleyYeah, and let's do something a little bit different this week. Let's have director Stanley Kramer introduce the film.
Stanley KramerLadies and gentlemen, my name is Stanley Kramer. Nothing can possibly rival the excitement and the provocation. I refer to the battle and the clash in a motion picture film known as Inherit the Wind. Now the protagonists or antagonists in this battle are Spencer Tracy and Frederick March, both two-time winners of the Academy Award.
RemiThank you, Stanley. I'll take it from here. Inherit the Wind is a 1960 American drama film based on the 1955 play of the same name by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Edwin Lee. The supporting cast of the film includes Gene Kelly, Dick York, Harry Morgan, Donna Anderson, Claude Aikens, Noah Beery Jr., Florence Eldridge, and Jimmy Boyd. Before it ever made its way to the big screen, Inherit the Wind was already a massive success on Broadway. The original production opened at New York's National Theater on April 21st, 1955, where it ran for an impressive 806 performances before closing on June 22nd, 1957. And it even picked up two Acting Tony Awards in 1956. So pretty impressive.
AshleyAt the time, it was the longest-running drama on Broadway.
RemiNow, although the play and the film are inspired by the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee were very clear that they never intended Inherit the Wind to be a historical recreation of what actually happened. Instead, they used the trial as a vehicle to comment on something much more contemporary. The play was written as an allegory for McCarthyism, a period during the late 1940s and 1950s when Senator Joseph McCarthy and other government officials led aggressive campaigns to root out suspected communists. During that time, thousands of Americans, including government employees, teachers, entertainers, and writers, were investigated, blacklisted, or lost their jobs, often on little more than suspicion or accusation.
AshleyThere is actually something known as the Hollywood 10, which is a group of ten prominent directors and screenwriters who were blacklisted from Hollywood because they refused to testify about other people that were accused of being communists. I actually had this on a list of potential bonus episodes, so if anyone is interested in hearing more about it, let us know via email or comments on our Instagram post at criminal adaptations.
RemiLawrence and Lee saw clear parallels between that era and the Scopes trial, using the story to explore the dangers of censorship, intolerance, and punishing people simply for expressing unpopular opinions. While the characters of Henry Drummond, Matthew Harrison Brady, Bettram Cates, and E.K. Hornbeck are based on Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan, John Scopes, and journalist H. L. Menkin, respectively, Lawrence and Lee even included a note at the beginning of the play reminding audiences that this wasn't intended to be a history lesson. Many of the courtroom exchanges, character relationships, and major events were either changed or completely invented for dramatic purposes.
AshleyI like that they owned it.
RemiThe film did not do that, but I appreciate the fact that the play did.
AshleyAnd it makes sense since it is supposed to be a metaphor for a political event that was going on when they were writing and producing this.
RemiThe title itself comes from Proverbs 1129,
Broadway Roots And Blacklisting
Remiwhich reads, He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind. I have no idea what that means. The screenplay was adapted by Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith, although Young couldn't even use his real name. After appearing before the House Un-American Activities Committee, he'd been blacklisted from Hollywood and was forced to write under the pseudonym Nathan E. Douglas just to continue working. Stanley Kramer refused to distance himself from Young despite the controversy. In fact, Kramer was publicly criticized by the American Legion for hiring someone that they considered subversive. His decision also earned him praise from many within Hollywood, including Moss Hart, president of the Authors League of America, who sent Kramer a telegram commending him for standing against blacklisting and defending a writer's right to work.
AshleyGod, this is like cancel culture now, but for no reason.
RemiIt was a glorified witch hunt. From the very beginning, Stanley Kramer had only one man in mind to play Henry Drummond, and that was two-time Academy Award-winning actor Spencer Tracy. And this is the first film I have ever seen him in.
AshleyI know a lot of these older actors, it's like you know their names, but the films are so old that most people haven't seen anything.
RemiAt the time, Tracy hadn't appeared in a film in nearly two years due to his declining health, so he was hesitant to take on another project. Kramer eventually convinced him by promising to work around his condition, shortening his days whenever necessary, and even building longer lunch breaks into the schedule.
Stanley KramerTakes a good deal of understanding and sympathy. The actor sometimes, the actors for whom, with me, the spoken word, the need, the necessity to depend upon the actor has been very great, inordinately great. Therefore, my sympatico for the actor is, I think for Spencer Tracy, I would have switched studios. I would have done anything. Because they they had the electricity, but through their silver toes, they've said what I wanted to say. And I feel that though he has been responsible for my greatest agony, certain actors have given me more nights of sleeplessness than any other people or group of people in the world. But I'm dependent upon them. I must love them. I love them for what they can be and must be, rather than in each instance for what they are. But that's my opinion.
AshleySounds like he probably has a love-hate relationship with some of his actors, no?
RemiAnd this is why Trey Parker and Matt Stone used puppets in Team America World Police. Gene Kelly wasn't exactly a quick yes either. When Stanley Kramer first offered him the role of newspaper columnist E.K. Hornbeck, Kelly wasn't interested. So, Kramer told Kelly that Spencer Tracy and Frederick March were already on board, even though neither of them had officially signed on yet. That little fib turned out to be just enough to convince Kelly to change his mind and accept the part. Dick York's role as Bertram Cates would end up being his final feature film before he shifted almost entirely into television, where he'd later appear on shows like The Twilight Zone before becoming forever associated with the character Darren Stevens on the iconic sitcom Bewitched.
AshleyOh my god, did you ever watch Nick at Night?
RemiI did actually. When I was very young, I remember staying up late and watching it with my grandpa.
AshleyI loved Bewitched, I Love Lucy, Happy Days, and my favorite was I Dream of Jeannie.
RemiMy grandpa would watch a lot of MASH, and there is actually an actor from MASH in this film as well. Another bit of casting trivia is that Frederick March and Florence Eldridge, who play Matthew and Sarah Brady, were actually husband and wife in real life. The two married in 1927 and remained together until March's death in 1975.
AshleyAw, that must have been fun for them.
RemiOn the very first day of filming, Kramer asked Tracy for another take after he'd unintentionally mumbled one of his lines. Tracy didn't appreciate being corrected, and the two briefly argued, but the disagreement didn't last long, and they soon developed a deep mutual respect that carried through the rest of the film's production. While filming the courtroom scenes between Spencer Tracy and Frederick March, word of the two actors' electrifying performances quickly spread throughout the studio. And before long, crew members, extras, and even employees who weren't working on the film were sneaking onto the set just to watch these two Hollywood legends go toe-to-toe.
AshleyIt was like what happened when Jack Nicholson was filming his famous You Can't Handle the Truth Line. Everyone came to watch. Everyone.
RemiDuring one especially emotional speech by March, the crowd got so caught up in the moment that they actually burst into applause before the scene was over, simultaneously ruining the take in the process. According to Turner Classic movie host Dave Carger, Gene Kelly later said he learned a tremendous amount simply by watching Frederick March perform. Spencer Tracy, however, was another story altogether. Kelly said Tracy's acting was like magic. All you could do was watch and be amazed. And he does do a phenomenal job in this film. You can't take your eyes off him. The film's score was composed by Ernest Gold, who would go on to win the Academy Award for Best Original Score later that same year for Exodus, while the black and white cinematography was handled by Ernest Laszlo. Although she never received an on-screen credit, future Tony and Emmy Award winner Leslie Ugams performs the spiritually inspired songs heard during both the opening and closing of the film. And we will hear those in just a moment. So Ashley, I just updated my last will and testament. Are you ready to inherit the wind?
AshleyYes, let's say a little prayer first, though.
Leslie UggamsGive me that old time religion. Give me that old time religion.
RemiOur story begins outside Hillsborough Courthouse at exactly
A Teacher Arrested For Evolution
Remi8 a.m. Sidebar, the Hillsborough County Courthouse was originally built for an act of murder in 1948, in which Frederick March and Florence Eldridge also starred as a married couple. It was additionally the same building as the Hill Valley Courthouse in Back to the Future in 1985, and the Makem Courthouse in To Kill a Mockingbird in 1962.
AshleyOh my god, I love To Kill a Mockingbird. Have you seen that movie? I haven't seen that one either. Oh, it's so good. It's one of my favorite books of all time, and the movie is just as great. We should watch that too.
RemiContinuing with our story, a man wearing a boater hat exits the courthouse and begins walking down the street of a seemingly empty town. He's soon joined by two more men wearing matching boater hats, along with Reverend Jeremiah Brown, played by Claude Atkins. Now looking more like a barbershop quartet than a group of concerned citizens, the four men continue on their way down to Hillsborough Consolidated School. Inside, high school biology teacher Bertram T. Cates, played by Dick York, is in the middle of teaching his class when the Barbershop Quartet barges into the room and all stand silently in a row in the back of the class. Undeterred by the men's attempt at intimidation, Cates continues his lecture on Darwin's theory of evolution.
Bertram T. CatesFor our science lesson for today, we will continue our discussion of Darwin's theory of the descent of man. As I told you yesterday, Darwin's theory tells us that man evolved from a lower order of animals. From the first wiggly protozoa here in the sea to the ape, and finally, to man.
AshleyWait, at the end of this clip, someone puts a camera right in front of him as he's still talking. What are they doing with that camera?
RemiThey're taking photos for the newspaper. There's always a guy taking photos in like every scene of this film. And it's one of those old school flashes that's a big bulb that makes a burst of smoke whenever they take a photo. It's extremely distracting and surprisingly allowed in court as well. Moments later, one of the men approaches Cates and charges him with violating Public Act 31428 of the State Code, which makes it unlawful for any public school teacher to teach any theory that denies the biblical creation of man, and instead teaches that man descended from a lower order of animals. Cates is then placed under arrest in front of his class of students.
AshleyCan you imagine if that happened in real life? You're just sitting in science class and your teacher gets arrested. God, it would be the talk of the town.
RemiIf I was a student in this class and it was modern day, I would assume he was being arrested for something else. News of Cates' arrest quickly makes front page headlines across the country, with the case mockingly being dubbed the Monkey Trial, much to the dismay of the residents of Hillsborough, including the town's mayor, Jason Carter, played by Philip Coolidge. I mean, literally, they are basically the laughing stock of the entire nation for doing this. We then learn that a famous politician and lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for president twice, named Matthew Harrison Brady, played by Frederick March, has volunteered to prosecute the case, a decision that will undoubtedly bring even more attention and notoriety to the already highly publicized monkey trial. Meanwhile, down at the courthouse jail, Cates is visited by his girlfriend Rachel Brown, played by Donna Anderson, whom he has been seeing in secret, and also happens to be the daughter of Reverend Jeremiah Brown. In the middle of the star crossed lovers' conversation, they are interrupted by a dapper gentleman, casually chomping on an apple. Named E.K. Hornbeck, played by Gene Kelly. Hornbeck, a reporter for the Baltimore Herald, offers to find Kate's a lawyer capable of going head to head with the big bad Brady.
E.K. HornbeckWake up, Copernicus. The law is still on the side of the lawmakers, and everything revolves around their terrama.
Bertram T. CatesThen why bother you and your newspaper?
E.K. HornbeckBecause I know that the sunrise is an optical illusion. My teacher told me so.
AshleyYou don't seem like the kind of person who'd want to bother. You seem so cynical.
E.K. HornbeckTrue. True, that's part of my fascination. I do hateful things for which people love me, and I do lovable things for which they hate me. I'm admired for my detestability. Now don't worry, little Eva. I may be rancid butter. But I'm on your side of the bread.
AshleyMan, Gene Kelly was a looker now, wasn't he?
RemiAnd he is just effortlessly owning the screen. And I just want to comment on the amazing dialogue written in this film. It is, like I said earlier, just very colorful and unique, and it sounds more like a novel than it does a film, honestly. In the ensuing days, prosecuting attorney Matthew Brady and his wife arrive in town in the middle of a heat wave, where they're greeted with a full-on parade attended by basically the entire town. The festivities include atheism protesters, a choir of Karens singing a lively version of Give Me That Old Time Religion, and a speech from the mayor naming Brady an honorary colonel in the state militia. Brady then takes the stage to address the crowd personally, declaring that he will combat the forces of evil and that God, as always, will emerge triumphant in the end. He's soon interrupted by Hornbeck, who announces that they've hired the most agile legal mind of the 20th century, Henry Drummond, to represent Kates during the trial.
AshleyI probably would have saved that announcement for another day. Sounds like Brady isn't an act you want to follow.
RemiLater that night, Rachel tells her father, Reverend Brown, that she's in love with Kates. But Brown sees the relationship as an act of betrayal because Kates is an agnostic. This leads the father to dramatically drop to his knees and begin praying right there on the spot.
AshleyWasn't Reverend Brown one of the men that was in the classroom when Cates was arrested?
RemiHe was indeed. He's there basically the entire time. He seems like he's one of the people really spearheading this whole thing.
AshleyThat's gonna make for some awkward Thanksgiving dinners.
RemiOh, trust me, their relationship gets much worse by the end. Unlike Brady, defense attorney Henry Drummond, played by Spencer Tracy, arrives in Hillsborough on a bus, looking worse for wear, and is greeted only by Hornbeck, whom he'll be sharing a room with throughout the trial. By now, the town has taken on a lively carnival-like atmosphere, with people filling the streets, balloons everywhere, live music, hot dog stands, Bible salesmen, an actual chimp wearing a cowboy hat smoking a cigarette, and several more vendors and attractions.
AshleyGod, this sounds like a really fun time.
RemiAnd I also just want to point out that this is back in the day when they used real chimps in films, so it was a real chimpanzee smoking a real cigarette.
AshleyI'm not the biggest fan of that, but everything else I'm here for.
RemiThe following day, as Brady enters the courthouse, he's greeted warmly by cheering supporters. Moments later, Drummond walks through the very same door and is met with a chorus of boos by the same crowd of onlookers. During jury selection, the judge allows everyone in the courtroom, including the attorneys, to remove their jackets because it's 97 degrees inside and there's no goddamn air conditioning. Can you imagine, Ashley? It's hot in this room we're in right now. I'm sweating. But 97 degrees? In fact, when Brady first arrives into town, he is passing out hand fans to people in the audience that you see them all using in the courtroom later on.
AshleyWell, that's probably another reason he got applauded when he entered.
RemiMaking things even hotter is the fact that the courtroom is packed to the brim with reporters and townspeople, cheering and booing throughout the proceedings, just like a WWE match. Oh, and there's also an old bag in the audience who's just sort of sitting there knitting the entire time as well. Later that night, during a town prayer meeting, Reverend Brown publicly condemns both Kate's and his own daughter Rachel to burn in hellfire and brimstone for all of eternity.
Reverend BrownDo we believe? Do we believe the word? Yes. Do we believe the truth of the word? Do we curse the man who denies the word? Do we call down hellfire on the man who has sinned against the word?
The Town Turns Into A Circus
Reverend BrownLet him know the tenor of my sword, let his soul for all eternity. Right in the language and damn nation. We ask the same question for those who ask grace for the sinner.
RemiYep, he's definitely not going to be winning any Father of the Year awards anytime soon. And I have two things that I wanted to comment on here. The first is the fact that Reverend Brown is damning Cates to hell because he is an agnostic. An agnostic is not an atheist. An agnostic is someone who's just sort of on the fence and still open to the idea of God and spirituality, but hasn't really made a concrete decision. So that's enough in Reverend Brown's mind to be like, this person should burn for eternity. And his daughter, who still believes in God, he sentences her to the same thing just because she's supporting him. Also, he's praying to God to kill someone. There's a lot wrong with this picture, people.
AshleyYeah, well, it happened to Love Thy Neighbor.
RemiRight? The next day, Court resumes and one of Cates's students is called to the stand. Brady questions him about exactly what Cates had been teaching in class. The student explains that he learned man originated from microscopic cells and slime billions of years ago, before eventually evolving from old world monkeys, which then evolved into humans, sending both the prosecution and the courtroom into uproarious laughter. Ha ha ha! So preposterous! Ha ha ha! Slime. Rachel Brown is next called to the stand by the prosecution. When asked what her relationship with the defendant is, Rachel reveals that she and Cates are engaged to be married.
AshleyOoh, they should have just rushed to the courthouse and gotten married so she wouldn't have to testify.
RemiShe goes on to explain that they originally met in church. But Kate stopped attending after the Tommy Stebbins incident two summers earlier. Tommy was a bright 13-year-old boy and one of Kates' students who dreamed of maybe even becoming a scientist one day. Until, while swimming in a river with some of the other boys, Tommy got a cramp and tragically drowned. At his funeral, Reverend Brown declared that because Tommy had never been baptized, he died in sin and his soul was damned to rot in hellfire.
AshleyMan, there aren't many movies where a Reverend is the clear villain of our story. Damn.
RemiOh, this Reverend is a total piece of shit. He did this at the little boy's funeral. That moment had a profound impact on Kate, who ultimately decided to leave the church after refusing to believe that God would deny an innocent little boy entry into heaven simply because he hadn't been baptized.
AshleyMan, what a wild, wild thought to have in your head.
RemiAfter dealing a devastating blow to the defense, the prosecution rests, and it is now Drummond's turn to call his first witness, Dr. Amos Keller, the head of zoology at the University of Chicago, to explain the theory of evolution to the courtroom. Unfortunately, Brady objects on the grounds of relevance, and the judge sustains the objection before Dr. Keller can even take the stand. Drummond then tries calling Dr. Alan Page, a deacon of the Congressional Church and professor of geology and archaeology. But Brady objects once again and the judge again sustains it. Exceedingly frustrated after all six of the noted scientists Drummond brought in to testify are dismissed without saying a word, Drummond staunchly requests permission to officially withdraw from the case.
Henry DrummondI think my client has already been found guilty. That this expression of an honest emotion will, in any way, influence the court's impartial administration of the law, I say that you cannot administer a wicked law impartially. You can only destroy, you can only punish. But I warn you that a wicked law like power destroys everyone it touches. It's opposed as well as its defiance. That if you take a law like evolution and you 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. And soon you may ban books and newspapers. And then you may turn populists against Protestant, and Protestant against Protestant, and try to force 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 people. And soon, Your Honor, with banners trying and with drums beating, we'll be marching backward. Backward. Through the glorious ages of that 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared, bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind.
RemiAnd I also just want to point out that Tracy did a lot of these scenes in a single take. So he is starting at 11 here. This is a crazy performance to give right out of the gate.
AshleyIt's also a lot of dialogue to memorize.
RemiIn response to Drummond's request, the judge orders Drummond to show cause by 10 o'clock the following morning as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. In the meantime, he's ordered into the custody of the bailiff and released on a $4,000 bond. Drummond's bail is posted by Tommy's father, John Stebbins, who puts up his farm to secure Drummond's release.
AshleyOh my gosh, I would immediately pay this farmer back if I was a slayer. There's no way he can't afford it.
RemiIt is an interesting scene because the judge at first won't allow it because the farm technically isn't money, but the president of the bank is also in the court that day, and he hops in and volunteers to give the amount of money that the farm is worth to the court for the release. So it's like a thing where a bunch of people from the audience help to keep Drummond out of custody. That night, as the townspeople parade through the streets carrying torches like an angry Simpsons mob, Oh won't somebody please think of the children! Drummond and Hornbeck discuss their dire situation over a few shots of whiskey back at their hotel room. Then Drummond starts thumbing through the pages of their handy-dandy hotel room Bible and suddenly gets a bright idea. Back in court the following morning, Drummond apologizes for his remarks the previous day, and the judge withdraws the contempt citation. Drummond also asks to withdraw his request to withdraw from the case, which is granted, meaning the trial will move forward after all. Before calling his very first witness, Drummond asks if there would be any objection to calling one of the world's foremost experts
The Bible On Trial In Court
Remion the Bible and its teachings. Confident that his opponent won't be able to use scripture to strengthen the defense, Brady says he has no objection. So Drummond calls Matthew Brady himself to the stand as a surprise witness. While it is highly unorthodox for a defense attorney to call the prosecuting attorney as a witness, Brady declares that this entire trial has been unorthodox, so agrees to testify on behalf of the Holy Scriptures. Drummond begins by asking Brady if he believes stories like Jonah and the Whale or Joshua stopping the sun in the sky had actually occurred and should be taken literally, to which Brady confidently responds, God can make any miracle possible. Drummond then points out what he sees as inconsistencies in the Bible, including Adam and Eve's son Cain having a wife who seemingly comes out of nowhere. But Brady simply chuckles and says, those types of questions are only for agnostic concerns. Drummond then presents a fossilized marine creature found in a rock that's millions of years old. But Brady insists that the rock can't possibly be older than 6,000 years old, since God began creation at exactly 9 a.m. on October 23, 4004 BC. Did you know that was the exact date that everything started, Ashley?
AshleyI did not. Interesting.
RemiYeah, I didn't know an actual time had been nailed down. The heated exchange finally reaches a boiling point when Drummond asks Brady why he should be the one to interpret the word of God.
Henry DrummondHow do you know that God didn't speak to Charles Darwin? I know because God tells me to oppose the evil teachings of that man. Oh, God speaks to you? Yes. He tells you what is right and wrong? Yes. And you act accordingly. Yes. So you, Matthew Harris, and Brady, through oratory or legislature or whatever, you pass on God's orders to the rest of the world. Well, meet the prophet from Nebraska. Is that the way of things? Is that the way of things? God tells Brady what is good. To be against Brady is to be against Darwin. Each man is a free agent. Then what is Burton Cates doing in a Hillsborough jail? Supposing Mr. Cates had the influence and the lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law saying that only Darwin could be taught in the schools. Ridiculous. Ridiculous. There is only one great truth in the world: the gospel. The gospel according to Brady. God speaks to Brady, and Brady tells the world. Brady, Brady, Brady, almighty!
AshleyBrady looked that whole time like he just wanted to suck Drummond in the face.
RemiHe was basically twitching. He was seething with so much anger. Back in court the next day, Brady is nervously chowing down on a basket of fried chicken, like literally a woven basket full of fried chicken. When the crowd goes silent as Judge Coffee, played by Harry Morgan, enters the courtroom. The judge then reads the jury's unanimous verdict that Bertram Cates is guilty as charged and ordered to pay a fine of $100. Despite the relatively small penalty, Drummond declares that Cates won't be paying a single penny and that he'll be appealing the judge's decision all the way to the state Supreme Court. Brady is, of course, butthurt by the meager outcome, and asks if he may address the court with a prepared speech. Unfortunately for Brady, court has already been adjourned, so the gallery has erupted into chaos, and there's even an ice cream man wandering around for some reason. So everyone is pretty distracted to say the least. In order to garner the crowd's attention, Brady climbs onto a chair and desperately tries to deliver his speech. When, literally out of nowhere, Brady suddenly kills over and dies right there in the middle of court. And that was basically Stanley Kramer's Inherit the Wind. Any questions, Ashley?
AshleyWow, I was not expecting it to end with a sudden death by heart attack, or who knows, perhaps God was so disappointed in him, he just struck him down right then and there. Hopefully he was baptized.
RemiThere is another final scene in the film with Drummond and Hornbeck in the empty courtroom, and they mention that Brady had died from some stomach burst. I'm not sure what that means. But there is one final scene of Hornbeck and Drummond talking in the court alone. So it doesn't abruptly cut to credits, or in this case, because the credits were at the beginning of the film, the film doesn't abruptly end the second that Brady falls to the floor dead. But it was very surprising.
AshleyWell,
The Shocking Ending And Reactions
AshleyI am so curious what your thoughts were on this movie. Speaking for myself, every clip you showed, I ended up playing beyond what we played here for our audience, because I was just kind of engrossed. I couldn't look away. The acting is really, really good.
RemiI think you hit the nail on the head with that one. It is surprisingly engrossing, and it's mainly because of the dynamic and captivating performances being given on screen. The scenes in the courtroom are all tremendously acted. I've never seen Spencer Tracy in a film before this, but watching such a courageous, screen-commanding performance like this one, which he apparently did at a time in his life where he was ill and not feeling well, is really, really impressive. And I need to go check out some of his other movies. I went into this film super pessimistic. The concept didn't really excite me. The fact that it was a courtroom drama and it was a 1960s film with a bunch of older actors whom I really wasn't super familiar with. All of that was a huge turnoff. And I can say right now, I was wrong. I was not bored watching this film at all. My attention was there from the beginning and to the end. There were several parts that I did find a little silly, but I kind of think they were supposed to seem silly. I think a lot of the humor in this is intentional, and yeah, it's a good movie. I was totally wrong to doubt this.
AshleyWell, that is so exciting. We definitely have to go back and try to watch some of the critically acclaimed older movies. I mean, I haven't even seen Gone with the Wind.
RemiI have seen Gone with the Wind once, a really, really long time ago. But yeah, the older films are and have been a consistent blind spot in my movie knowledge. When I was younger in film school, I just wasn't a fan of how these movies looked or the acting style. I like things a bit more gritty and realistic and edgy and stuff like that. But I have really grown to appreciate these films, and I'm embarrassed that I just sort of shrugged them off without ever giving them a chance to begin with.
AshleyWell, good. So our streak of trying to include one older film pre-1980s in each season can live on.
RemiIt certainly will. But let's jump into the release of Inherit the Wind. The film had its world premiere at the 10th annual Berlin International Film Festival on June 25th, 1960, before making its way to London for its UK premiere on July 7th. Just a couple of weeks later, Inherit the Wind had a pretty unique American premiere. Instead of debuting in Hollywood or New York, Stanley Kramer brought the film to the Ray Drive In Theater in Dayton, Tennessee, on July 21, 1960, exactly 35 years after the conclusion of the Real Scopes monkey. Trial.
AshleyI think that's really cool that he opted to do that.
RemiAround 5,000 people turned out for the event, including John T. Scopes himself, the very man whose trial inspired the story. As of this recording, the film holds a 93% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes based on 28 reviews, along with a 91% audience score based on more than 5,000 reviews. Despite those strong scores, Rotten Tomatoes has surprisingly never even published an official critical consensus for the film. Not everyone welcomed Inherit the Wind, though. Stanley Kramer later recalled that Spencer Tracy's line, The Bible is a book, it's a good book, but it's not the only book, caused Inherit the Wind to be banned in several southern states when it was first released.
AshleyI mean, he's not wrong. It's not the only book. There are lots and lots and lots and lots of books in this world.
RemiIt is a factual statement. Although the film earned plenty of praise from critics, audiences weren't quite as eager to buy tickets. Inherit the Wind grossed around $2 million worldwide, but ultimately recorded a loss of approximately $1.7 million for Stanley Kramer Productions. Award season, on the other hand, brought plenty of recognition for Inherit the Wind. At the 33rd Academy Awards, the film received four Oscar nominations, including Best Actor for Spencer Tracy, Best Adapted Screenplay for Nedrick Young and Harold Jacob Smith, Best Black and White Cinematography for Ernest Laszlo, and Best Film Editing for Frederick Nudson. Unfortunately, the film did go home empty-handed. It also received two Golden Globe nominations for Best Motion Picture Drama and Best Actor in a Motion Picture Drama for Spencer Tracy. Across the Atlantic, the film earned three BAFT nominations, including Best Film from Any Source, while Spencer Tracy and Frederick March were nominated for Best Foreign Actor. Stanley Kramer and Spencer Tracy continued their working relationship in Tracy's final three films, Judgment at Nuremberg in 1961.
AshleyWhich is also on our list.
RemiIt's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World in 1963, not on our list. And Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in 1967. I have only seen the Ashton Kutcher Bernie Mack remake of that film. Which is not good.
AshleyI'm pretty sure Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a very, very popular comedy.
RemiWell, the story of Inherit the Wind has been remade for television three times over the years, beginning in 1965 starring Melvin Douglas and Ed Begley, another in 1988 with Jason Robarts and Kirk Douglas, and a third in 1999 starring Jack Lemon
Premiere, Bans, And Awards Talk
Remiand George C. Scott.
AshleyWell, I'm personally glad we picked the OG.
RemiMe too.
AshleyWell, Remy, now that we've heard Hollywood's version of the curriculum, let's go back to the missing link and hear what history has to say.
Billy Murray & International Novelty Orchestra - Monkey Biz-nessMonkey business, monkey business, down in Tennessee.
AshleyBefore we can begin to understand what was dubbed the trial of the century, long
Who William Jennings Bryan Was
Ashleybefore O.J. Simpson and the infamous Bronco Chase, we have to talk about America in the early 1900s and one man in particular, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was born on March 19, 1860, just one year after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, his groundbreaking work outlining the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's sort of kismet that the man who became America's most famous critic of evolution entered the world just as Darwin's ideas were beginning to reshape it.
The SimpsonsSo you're calling God a liar, an unbiased comparison of evolution and creationism. Let's say hi to two books. One, The Bible, was written by our Lord. The other, The Origin of Species, was written by a cowardly drunk named Charles Darwin.
AshleyBrian grew up in a deeply religious home, which no doubt shaped the convictions he defended with such gusto decades later. He entered Congress in 1890 as a Democratic populist from Nebraska, committed to rolling back Republican-backed tariffs and increasing public control over corporate interests.
RemiStill relevant today.
AshleyHe was also a pacifist who spoke out against imperialism and militarism following the Spanish-American War. His progressive economic views and electrifying speaking ability made him a powerful political force. He secured the Democratic presidential nomination in 1896, 1900, and 1908, though he ultimately lost twice to William McKinley and later to William Howard Taft. Here's actually a clip of one of his most famous speeches from when he was running for president in 1908.
William Jennings BryanChrist gave us proof of immortality. And yet it would hardly seem difficult that one could rise from the dead to convince us that the grave is not the end. To every created thing, God has given a tongue that proclaims a resurrection. If the Father deigned to touch with divine power the cold and costless heart of the buried acorn, and to make it to burst forth from its prison wall, will he leave neglected in the earth the soul of man made in the image of his creator?
RemiOkay, first off, it just sounds like he's saying a bunch of nonsense. And secondly, there was an actual recording of this from 1908. Where did you find this?
AshleyOn YouTube, there are actually three different speeches by Brian that you can listen to, and the background of the clips are records. So I'm assuming these speeches were recorded and then sold on records so people could listen to them. Otherwise, it would just be broadcasted over the radio and probably no reruns.
RemiOr they could have been passed out at presidential rallies. This guy was running for president, so maybe he would have these speeches passed along so they could be given to other people who weren't there that day.
AshleyThree political runs without a victory might end most political careers, but Brian wasn't your average politician. After helping Woodrow Wilson secure the White House victory in 1912, Bryan was appointed Secretary of State. In that role, he negotiated a series of international treaties designed to prevent war by requiring nations to try to mediate disputes before taking up arms. Unfortunately, his stint in the White House was short-lived. In 1915, after Germany's submarine warfare heightened tensions with the United States, he resigned, fearing Wilson's aggressive verbal responses would ultimately pull the country into World War I. With more time on his hands, Bryan devoted himself to life as a speaker and writer, traveling across the country to champion political and religious causes. He played a key role in advocating for four constitutional amendments he believed would create a more democratic and righteous society, the direct election of senators, a progressive federal income tax, prohibition, and women's right to vote. In the years that followed, he averaged more than 200 speeches a year and authored dozens of books. And in the early 1920s, he found a new crusade. At the time, Kentucky became the first state where lawmakers began pushing legislation to prohibit teaching evolution in public schools. When Brian learned of the effort in January 1922, he joined the crusade with gusto.
RemiSo before Darwin, I'm assuming creationism was the standard that was taught in all schools?
AshleyI guess so.
RemiAnd I think after Darwin it still was taught, but now science began backing up a lot of the stuff Darwin was saying, so I guess the Darwin stuff became more credible.
AshleyAnd more was being learned about it. Brian spent the next month touring the state, urging lawmakers to support the bill, which lost by a single vote in the Kentucky House of Representatives. This narrow defeat didn't detour him or anti-evolution advocates in other states. Campaigns soon emerged in New York, Texas, and much of the South. To draw attention to the case, Bryan published a plea in the New York Times urging restrictions on teaching evolution. He argued that neither Darwin nor his supporters have been able to find a fact in the universe to support their hypothesis. This reflected his belief that evolution was speculative rather than established science.
RemiI feel like I need to read a book on Darwin now.
AshleyBryan spoke and wrote relentlessly on the subject, and his hard work paid off. By the spring of 1923, lawmakers in six states were actively considering anti-evolution proposals. Only two modest measures passed. Oklahoma added a provision to its public school textbook law prohibiting the adoption of material that presented Darwin's theory in preference to the biblical account of creation. Florida followed with the resolution declaring it improper and subversive to the best interests of the people to teach Darwinism as anything more than a hypothesis. So these two amendments, I guess, weren't outlawing the teaching of evolution. They were just basically saying you can't teach it as fact and you can't teach it as fact over creationism. By 1925, Tennessee lawmakers were pushing for their own anti-evolution bill, one with real teeth. Unlike earlier measures that focus on textbooks or state policy, this proposal would make it a crime to teach evolution in public schools. The effort immediately caught Brian's attention. He traveled to Tennessee in January to lobby and support and proposed that violations be treated as misdemeanors, punishable by a maximum fine of $100 for anyone who taught a theory conflicting with the quote, divine creation of man as taught in the Bible, end quote. Unlike other legislation that had stalled, this one moved with remarkable speed. Just six days after its introduction, it passed through the Tennessee House of Representatives without a public hearing or meaningful debate. On March 11, 1925, the state Senate Judiciary Committee approved what had become known as the Butler Act without amendment. Despite Bryan's own suggestion to remove the criminal penalty, the full Senate voted in favor of the bill 10 days later. Finally, on March 21, 1925, Governor Austin P. signed the Butler Act into law. His decision to do so was largely a political one. On the verge of a re-election campaign, he hoped signing the bill would strengthen his support among rural voters. He reportedly believed the law would be largely symbolic, unlikely to ever be reinforced, or truly interfere with science education.
RemiSo this guy was trying to pass laws that he didn't believe in just to trick people into voting for him.
AshleyBasically, yeah, and this practice kind of still happens today. Politicians will barter votes on certain legislation if they think it will help them out some way in the end. The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU for short, took a different stance on the matter. To them, the Butler Act wasn't just another law sitting quietly on the books. It was a direct threat to free speech, academic freedom, and the separation of church and state. It was unconstitutional, and they intended to prove it. On May 4th, 1925, they published a press release in the Chattanooga Times that read, We are looking for a Tennessee teacher who is willing to accept our services and testing the law in the courts. Our lawyers think a friendly test case can be arranged without costing a teacher his or her job. Distinguished counsel have volunteered their services. All we need now is a willing client.
RemiWait, so this was like a publicity stunt?
AshleyIt was essentially an open casting call for a constitutional showdown. The ACLU wasn't looking for someone who accidentally broke the law. They wanted someone willing to purposefully challenge it because they thought it was unconstitutional. So they basically thought, well, get this person to break the law. It's a misdemeanor, it's not going to have any real consequences. And then we can appeal the conviction to the Supreme Court and get the law overturned. That was their end game. The press
The Butler Act Becomes Criminal Law
Ashleyrelease caught the attention of George Raplia, a mine manager living in Dayton, a small community nestled between Chattanooga and Knoxville, Tennessee. Raplia was a religious man, but also accepted evolution and saw no inherent conflict between science and faith. He also saw an opportunity. He quickly gathered a group of influential local leaders at Robin's drugstore, owned by County School Board Chairman Frank Robinson. Robinson also happened to sell the state-approved biology textbook used in Tennessee public schools, George Hunter's A Civic Biology, which included a section titled Charles Darwin and Natural Selection. Also joining the meeting were school board superintendent Walter White, long before he started teaching high school chemistry and cooking blue meth in New Mexico.
Walter WhiteI am the danger. I am the one who knocks.
RemiYou made the joke before I could.
AshleySeveral local prosecutors and defense attorneys were also there, many of whom agreed to participate in the case before ultimately withdrawing once it gained national attention. Almost all questioned the constitutionality of the Butler Act and agreed that a high-profile trial could put their struggling little town on the map. Once the ACLU confirmed it would honor its offer to defend a test case, the group recruited 24-year-old John Scopes, a football coach, general science, and math teacher who occasionally substituted in biology classes using a civic biology. In the eyes of the organizers, he was the perfect defendant. He was young, well-liked, unmarried, non-threatening, and agnostic. He also was not engaged. Nor was he intending to stay in Dayton long term. Plus, he was close friends with prosecutor Sue Higgs. After Scopes agreed to become the defendant for the ACLU's test case, Raplia wasted no time arranging for him to be formally charged with violating the Butler Act. The national banner broke the story the following day, and the Associated Press quickly carried it into newspapers across the country. To anyone paying close attention, it was obvious this wasn't an ordinary criminal prosecution. The case was carefully orchestrated from the very beginning. Newspapers across Tennessee, even those that opposed the Butler Act, criticized Dayton for staging the trial, dismissing it as nothing more than a ploy to bring widespread attention to an otherwise unremarkable town. The ACLU envisioned a rather straightforward constitutional test case with the real legal battle taking place on appeal. Their strategy was to challenge the constitutionality of the Butler Act by arguing that it violated teachers' rights, restricted academic freedom, and improperly dictated what could be taught in public schools. But it didn't take long for the ACLU to lose control of its own case. On May 15, 1925, William Jennings Bryan announced he was joining the prosecution free of charge, even though he hadn't practiced law in nearly 30 years. Not long after, Clarence Darrow, waiving his fee for the first and only time in his career, and several other attorneys joined the defense team. While they believed the Butler Act deserved a constitutional challenge, many were equally motivated by the opportunity to square off against Brian. Darrow also viewed the trial as a chance to speak against an organization he viewed as a quote, slave religion, end quote. He also loved publicity. You see, at the time he was arguably one of the country's most famous criminal defense attorneys. He began his career as a labor lawyer in Chicago before shifting to criminal defense in 1911, mostly representing labor leaders, political radicals, and wealthy murderers. He also had a rather liberal view of the rising crime rate in the country and America's treatment of criminal offenders.
Clarence DarrowBoys and men will steal. When times are hard, who never would steal. If they have a chance to make a living in some other way. What we need is a humane understanding of the problem. And if that was done, we could get rid of crime.
AshleyJust a year before the Scopes trial, Darrow became a household name after two wealthy University of Chicago students kidnapped and murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks just to prove they could commit the perfect crime.
RemiJesus, that's horrific.
AshleyAnd if this story sounds familiar, it's because it inspired the 2002 film Murder by Numbers, starring Sandra Bullock, Ryan Gosling, and Michael Pitt.
RemiWhich is also on our list.
AshleyYes, so this probably won't be the last time you hear us talking about Clarence Darrow.
RemiIt's all connected.
AshleyAnd it wasn't necessarily the crime that captivated the public, it was his defense strategy. Rather than denying his clients' guilt, he argued that their actions were shaped by psychological trauma, heredity, and environmental influences, making them less morally culpable than the prosecution claimed. His infamous 12-hour closing statement persuaded the judge to spare Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb the death penalty, cementing Darrow's reputation as perhaps the greatest defense attorney in the country.
Remi12 hours? You told me about this. This is something where there wasn't a full court present. It was just him and the judge in a room for 12 hours.
AshleyNo, the full court would have been present. There's two types of trials. There's a jury trial, which we all know there's 12 people who sit in a box and listen to the evidence and decide if someone's guilty or not guilty. And then there's a bench trial, where everything is the exact same, except it is only the judge that decides the verdict. And the defense, or the defendant per se, gets to pick what trial they want. John Scott was understandably thrilled to have someone of Darrow's stature on his side. The ACLU, on the other hand, was less enthusiastic. They worry he was too combative, too outspoken, and too eager to make the trial about religion rather than the Butler Act's constitutionality. In their minds, he would turn their carefully planned challenge into the kind of media circus they hoped to avoid.
RemiHe was a wild card.
AshleyThe grand jury convened on May 25th, 1925. The prosecution called four witnesses Superintendent Walter White and three students, all of whom testified that Scopes had taught evolution from George Hunter's A Civic Biology. The students were carefully coaxed by the defense on what to say beforehand. After Scopes was indicted, both sides agreed to start. The trial in just six weeks. Man, did the wheels of justice move quickly back in the day? In early June, Scopes, defense attorney John Neal, and George Raplia traveled to New York to meet with leaders of the ACLU and coordinate their legal strategy. A formal dinner was held in Scopes' honor. The trip concluded with publicity photos in front of the Statue of Liberty and on Capitol Hill on the return trip to Tennessee.
RemiSeems like a PR tour.
AshleyThat's exactly what it was. The six weeks between Scopes' indictment and the start of the trial became a media frenzy. Newspapers across the country covered every development. William Jennings Bryan traveled near and far, giving speeches and freely discussing the case. His constant travels left him largely unavailable for meetings with fellow prosecutors, but he took responsibility for recruiting expert witnesses. There were no shortage of theological experts, but shockingly, finding a reputable scientist willing to testify against evolution was impossible. Aside from Byron's public comments, the prosecution was tight-lipped about their trial strategy. The defense took the opposite approach. They spoke openly with reporters about their plans and issued almost daily updates about the experts they intended to call. By the time trial approached, they had assembled eight scientists and theologians from a range of disciplines. From the outset, the defense had two central arguments. First, they intended to show that accepting evolution didn't necessarily conflict with the biblical account of creation. Second, they argued that the Butler Act was unconstitutional because it infringed on academic freedom by allowing the government to dictate what teachers could and could not teach in the classroom. Most major American newspapers openly sided with the defense. Even Albert Einstein, which I'm going to be honest here, I didn't even know was alive in the 1920s, weighed in by declaring, any restriction of academic freedom heaps coals of shame upon the community. The most heated debate, unsurprisingly, took place in churches across the country. Modernist ministers argued that scientific discoveries, like evolution, could coexist with religious faith, and that the book of Genesis shouldn't always be interpreted literally. Thank you. I do think that that view, especially of the Old Testament, is a much more widely held one today than it was back in the day. Fundamentalist ministers, on the other hand, disagreed. The Bible was the inherent word of God, and its account of creation must take precedence over any competing scientific theory. Meanwhile, Dayton's Civic Association was busy preparing their small town for a flood of visitors. There were only three small hotels, nowhere near enough beds to accommodate the crowds expected for the trial, so the town improvised. Army cots were set up in hotel hallways, vacant railroad dining and sleeper cars were parked on nearby tracks to provide extra lodging, and many residents leased out their homes before leaving town for the duration of the proceedings. The Southern Railway agreed to add extra passenger cars to accommodate the influx of travelers arriving for the trial. Even the courthouse got a makeover. A fresh coat of paint, 500 additional seats, and new toilets. Courtroom technology was also upgraded. Three microphones were installed to broadcast the proceedings over loudspeakers on the courthouse lawn and in four public auditoriums
The ACLU Builds A Test Case
Ashleyacross town, allowing for thousands of people to follow the trial, even if they couldn't squeeze inside. Finally, thousands of miles of temporary telegraph wires were strung so reporters would be able to transmit their stories across the country. The Scopes trial was the first in American history to ever be broadcasted.
RemiWow, I did not know that. That is very historic.
AshleyI know it's crazy. We covered with Susan Smart the first trial that was ever on TV, and now this is the first one that was ever on the radio.
RemiWe have yet to get to the first trial that was covered live on film.
AshleyOr YouTube.
RemiI'm sure that's coming.
AshleyAs the trial approached, reporters and spectators poured into Dayton. Those unable to find lodging camped nearby, turning the small Tennessee town into something resembling a celebratory festival. Local merchants leaned into the spectacle by decorating their storefronts with pictures of apes and monkeys. Some visitors offered sideshow attractions, including opportunities to pose for photographs with a live chimp and view fossils. For a modest fee, of course. Outside the courthouse, food vendors set up alongside book stalls, souvenir stands, and carnival games, providing lunch and entertainment to the roughly 1,000 spectators who gathered each day during court breaks. I would totally hit up this carnival.
RemiI know, right? It sounds like a good time.
AshleyJury selection began on July 10th, 1925, with crowds lining up two hours before the doors opened. Every available seat and standing space was filled. The atmosphere reflected the excitement beyond the courthouse walls. The crowd erupted into applause when William Jennings Bryant entered the courtroom, and again when he shook hands with Clarence Darrow before the two posed for pictures alongside Judge John Ralston. So, unlike the movie, defense was not booed. The day also included a lengthy opening prayer from a local fundamentalist minister, setting the tone for a trial that was about to become as much a cultural battle as a legal one.
RemiAnd I'm assuming that is the basis for Reverend Brown.
AshleyPerhaps it's not the same minister that gives a prayer every day. So I don't know. I think Reverend Brown is just a completely fictionalized person.
RemiAn amalgamation.
AshleyBut the biggest challenge on the first day wasn't jury selection or arguments over science and religion. It was the damn heat. A brutal summer heat wave sent temperatures soaring above 100 degrees on some days, roughly 20 degrees higher than average. The courthouse's poor ventilation made conditions nearly unbearable. Judge Ralston banned smoking inside because the air was already so stagnant, though the floor quickly became lined with spittoons for chewing tobacco.
RemiFirst off, that is gross. And secondly, it never even occurred to me the whole smoking thing, because in the film nobody smokes cigarettes. But could you imagine being in this muggy, thick air room with people spitting into spittoons and oh my god, this sounds so unpleasant.
AshleyIt would not be something I would be able to stand. And people were clamoring to get in. Well, another good point is that allowances were made for a more relaxed dress code. Several spectators and co-prosecutor Ben McKenzie nearly collapsed from heat exhaustion.
RemiIf I was the judge, I would just hold court outside, under a nice shady tree.
AshleyHuh, well, keep that in mind. Once jury selection concluded, it was time for the judge to rule on proposed motions. Lead prosecutor Tom Stewart argued that the scientists and theologians the defense planned to call as expert witnesses weren't relevant to the case. The only question before the jury was simple. Did John Scopes violate the Butler Act by teaching evolution? Nothing else mattered. The defense was furious. Their entire strategy depended on expert witnesses who could explain that evolution didn't necessarily conflict with religious beliefs and that the Butler Act itself was constitutionally questionable. Without those witnesses, their carefully planned defense was gutted. The defense team came out swinging after the weekend adjournment. They filed a motion to quash the indictment, arguing that the Butler Act was unconstitutional because it improperly restricted teachers' freedoms and established a religious preference in public education.
RemiYeah, not everybody is the same religion.
AshleyTheir arguments were rejected one by one. They also objected to the practice of opening court sessions with prayer, arguing that it risked influencing the jurors by repeatedly framing the case in religious terms. Judge Ralston overruled this objection, but agreed to a compromise. Prayers would alternate between fundamentalist and modernist ministers in an effort to appear more balanced. The jury finally entered the courtroom for opening statements on Wednesday, July 15th. Prosecutor Stewart kicked things off with a two-sentence opening statement, summarizing their straightforward claim. Scopes violated the Tennessee law by teaching that, quote, mankind is descended from a lower order of animals. Therefore, he has taught a theory which denies the story of divine creation of man as taught in the Bible. And I want to point out here that I'm saying Stuart is the lead prosecutor. He was, William Jennings Bryan was co-counsel.
RemiIn the film, it is reversed. There is a co-counsel, but Brady, aka Bryan, has definitely taken the lead in the trial.
AshleyThe defense countered by saying the prosecution was making an assumption it couldn't prove. Teaching evolution, they argued, didn't automatically mean rejecting the Bible. The state had to prove Scopes violated the law, not that evolution and religion were enemies. The prosecution first called Superintendent Walter White, who testified that Scopes had admitted to teaching evolution from a civic biology. Ironically, Scopes himself later admitted that he wasn't even sure if he had actually taught evolution to his students, which would make sense because he was primarily a physics, math, and general science teacher rather than a biology instructor. He only incriminated himself so he could be the defendant in the ACLU's case to challenge the Butler Act. And here's a clip of him from 1967 answering a question about why he chose to be the defendant in this case.
John T. ScopesNo, I uh think that I did enough fighting in 1925, besides that bill, in itself was uh just the uh means of expressing what I think. I think that uh no group of people should ever be permitted to use the power of the state to force that belief on anybody else.
AshleyNext up were two high school students, freshman Howard Morgan and senior Harry Shelton. Neither came across as particularly knowledgeable about evolution, but both testified that Scopes mentioned it in class. The final witness was Frank Robinson, the school board chairman and owner of the drugstore where the entire Dayton conspiracy began. After his testimony, the prosecution rested its case in less than an hour.
RemiWow, that's a speedy prosecution.
AshleyFrom the very beginning, the prosecution said that this was going to be a quick case. And it's understandable that they would say that. Their argument that all they had to do was prove whether this act was or was not violated is right. All the arguments that the defense is trying to make should be presented on appeal when they're trying to challenge the act in and of itself.
RemiThat is true because according to the law, he did break it.
AshleyThat's exactly right. And whether the law he broke was constitutional or not is something that is an appellate question. But rather than deny that scopes had taught evolution, the defense attempted to show that doing so didn't actually violate the Butler Act. To make that argument, they needed expert testimony explaining both the science of evolution and its relationship to biblical creation. They deliberately avoided putting scopes on the witness stand, fearing that cross-examination would reveal an inconvenient detail. Their carefully chosen defendant wasn't even a biology teacher. Their first and subsequently only expert witness was Maynard Metcalfe, a zoologist and senior researcher at Johns Hopkins University. After establishing his credentials, the prosecution objected on the grounds of relevance, stating, We are rejecting to everything here that pertains to evolution or to anything that tends to show that there might be or might not be a conflict between the story of divine creation and evolution.
RemiTheir little PR stunt is starting to backfire on them here.
AshleyThis position rendered essentially all the defense's evidence irrelevant. They countered by arguing that the Butler Act only barred instruction on evolution if it contradicted the biblical account of creation. Under that interpretation, expert testimony wasn't only relevant, it was essential. Because the judge decided questions regarding admissibility of evidence, the jurors were dismissed less than two hours after they entered the courtroom. William Jennings Bryan led the prosecution's argument against allowing expert witness testimony. Spectators hung on his every word. They laughed when he made jokes and applauded when he finished. Co-counselor Dudley Malone shouted his defiance. We feel we stand with science. We feel we stand with intelligence. We feel we stand with fundamental freedom in America. We are not afraid. We ask your honor to admit the evidence. The crowd erupted into a standing ovation. Isn't this crazy that this is happening in a courtroom? A standing ovation? What is going on here?
RemiThis is a circus, but it's pretty entertaining to hear about, and I'm guessing it was pretty entertaining to watch.
AshleyCourt adjourned until Friday when Judge Ralston issued his ruling. The eight expert witnesses would not testify before the jury. However, their written statements could be submitted into the records, so their arguments could potentially be considered during an appeal. The court then adjourned again for the weekend to give the defense time to prepare those statements. On Monday, Clarence Darrow found himself in trouble for a verbal outburst on the previous Friday, in which he accused Judge Ralston of favoring the prosecution. He was cited for contempt of court, but the charge was dismissed after he apologized. He was not taken into a custody, nor was there any sort of bail needed to be put up. Next, the proceedings were physically moved. Because the courtroom was dangerously overcrowded, there were concerns the floor might not support the weight of the hundreds of spectators packed
Darrow Vs Bryan On The Lawn
Ashleyinside. So the proceedings relocated to the courthouse lawn. With the jury still excused, Darrow made an unprecedented move. He called William Jennings Bryan to the stand. Not as a scientist, but as an authority on the Bible.
RemiWow, okay, this was something I could have sworn was made up for the film.
AshleyAnd Brian never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but he had spent decades speaking about religion, and the defense saw an opportunity. As word of the showdown spread, the crowd swelled from roughly 500 to nearly 3,000. Young boys even strolled through the lawn selling cold soda pop as people anxiously awaited for the hearing to get back underway. For close to two hours, Darrow questioned Brian about the literal interpretation of the Bible. He challenged him on stories including Jonah and the Whale, Noah's Ark, the creation of the world, and Eve being created from Adam's rib. In 1974, he recreated some of his questioning during a speaking engagement.
Clarence Darrow (reenactment)William Jennings Bryan, welcome to Tennessee, sir. You believe that everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally? So that when you read the whale swallowed Jonah, you accept that literally? You believe Joshua made the sun stand still? Then you also believe at that time the sun went around the earth. No? Then it must have been the earth he made standstill.
RemiWell, Mr. Darrow is definitely giving Spencer Tracy a run for his money here during this little recreation he is doing. He starts with his jacket on, he takes it off dramatically, he's standing, walking around, he is doing a full-on performance here. And I also wanted to add, his entire line of questioning about the timing of the seven days is in the film.
AshleyYou can tell that this guy is a lawyer, and you can also tell he's having a really fun time reenacting this.
RemiHe has a flair for the dramatic, I can tell.
AshleyI also want to take a second here to point out we just realized we've been swapping between pronouncing Clarence Darrow's last name as the correct way to say it of Darrow with also Darrow. Apologies, we will make sure we say it correctly from here on out. Judge Ralston ended the spectacle once light rainfall forced the proceedings back inside. I guarantee you everyone would have taken the rain over the heat.
RemiI guarantee you that crowd just stood out there in the rain.
AshleyJust with their hands to their sides, staring up, like in the Shawshank Redemption movie poster.
RemiEverybody's doing an Andy Deframe.
AshleyHe barred any further questioning of Brian and ordered his testimony removed from the record because it quote shed no light upon any issue that will be pending before the higher court. The issue now is whether or not Mr. Scopes taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, end quote.
RemiWhich he did.
AshleyWith no tools left in their arsenal, the defense rested. Once the jury returned to the courtroom, for the first time since the prosecution rested its case after one hour, Darrow made an unexpected announcement. Rather than to continue fighting for an acquittal he knew was illegally impossible, he conceded, explaining, We came down here to offer evidence in this case, and the court has held under the law that the evidence we had is not admissible. So all we can do is take an exception and carry it to a higher court to see whether the evidence is admissible or not. We cannot even explain to you that we think you should return a verdict of not guilty. We do not see how you could. We do not ask it.
RemiDamn, Ashley, now you're the little Spencer Tracy here.
AshleyI was gonna say I tried. I could have committed further. Maybe I'll do it with my next block quote.
RemiIt was a good first take.
AshleyOn July 21st, 1925, the jury retired to the hallway to deliberate. They returned with their verdict nine minutes later. Guilty. I just looked up what the fastest jury deliberation was in US history, and it was six minutes on a double murder case, which uh doesn't pose well for that guy, in 2010.
RemiThey do say that the longer the jury is deliberate. The better chance there is of a not guilty verdict.
AshleyJudge Ralston immediately imposed the maximum fine of $100, the equivalent of roughly $1,800 today. That's not a small amount of money, especially for a high school school teacher. I'd be pissed if I got a fine for almost two grand.
RemiYeah, especially since he was basically hired to do this.
AshleyThe ACLU did have a defense fund, so I bet you they paid the fine. But this fine was imposed without first giving Scopes the opportunity to speak. So in the sentencing phases of trial, defendants are allowed the opportunity to say something. The defense quickly pointed out the procedural error. Scopes then spoke for the first and only time in court. Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom. That is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, or personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust. Much better, Ashley. I'm impressed. Thank you, thank you, I tried. In the days after the trial, the Ray County School Board offered to renew Scopes' teaching contract for another year, provided he comply with Tennessee's anti-evolution law, of course. He declined. Rather than remain the center of a national controversy, he set his sights on a different path. He enrolled in graduate school at the University of Chicago, studied geology, and became a petroleum engineer. In a strange yet devastating turn of events, William Jennings Bryant died unexpectedly during his after-church nap just five days after the verdict. He was 65 years old.
RemiSo he actually did die, not in the middle of court, but he died within the week.
AshleySo I wonder if the play and movie got some criticism by having him collapse and die in the courtroom. I definitely can see the argument that it's distasteful, but it also is just supposed to be a metaphor. I don't know.
RemiAnd it's super dramatic.
AshleyWell, the official cause of death was apoplexy, which is a historical medical term generally used at the time to describe a stroke or cerebral hemorrhage. Many assumed the stress of the Scopes trial contributed to his death. Some even blamed Clarence Darrow, citing his intense cross-examination. Brian's funeral was a national event. Thousands gathered along the route as his coffin traveled from Dayton to Washington, D.C., where he was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. In the months that followed, the trial continued to live on in popular culture. Musicians across the country wrote and performed a wave of country and folk songs about the trial, Brian, and the clash between science and religion. These became known as Scope's songs.
"Scopes Song"And a story I will tell about a man named Mr. Bryant. A man that we all love now with.
RemiWow, it's exactly like Bob Dylan's hurricane song that we discussed two weeks ago.
AshleyExcept for on a more crazy scale. There's like 20 of these songs. The song that was played at the beginning of my section was a scope song. There's another one I really, really, really wanted to play that went like, You can't make a monkey out of me. But it's so old that the audio, the only audio on YouTube, was just so bad. It's crazy. There were so many songs.
RemiIt was a hit genre at the time, apparently.
AshleyAt the conclusion of the trial, Scopes' defense team and the ACLU immediately turned their attention to the appellate process, but their options were quickly limited by a procedural mistake. Defense attorney John Neal missed the deadline for filing certain objections, meaning Scopes couldn't challenge many aspects of the trial itself, including Judge Rolston's exclusion of expert testimony.
RemiWow, the defense really dropped the ball on this entire thing.
AshleyI'm sure at this point the ACLU is just banging their head against a wall constantly.
RemiIt's like, why did we do this?
AshleyHowever, the appeal could focus almost entirely on one question. Was the Butler Act constitutionally valid? Which is the whole question the ACLU wanted to bring up from the very get-go.
RemiYeah, but it kind of blew up in their face.
AshleyOral arguments were heard over two days in May 1926, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals issued its decision on January 15th,
Fast Verdict And Appeal Fallout
Ashley1927. In written and oral arguments, the defense raised four primary objections. First, they argued the Butler Act was unconstitutionally vague because it prohibited the teaching of evolution, a broad term that could refer to many scientific concepts. The court rejected this argument, reasoning that the meaning of the law was clear enough. It prohibited teaching that humans descended from a lower form of life. Second, the defense argued the law violated Scopes' constitutional rights by restricting his ability to teach. The court disagreed, holding that Tennessee had authority to regulate what was taught by its own public school employees. As a state employee under contract, Scopes didn't have an unlimited right to determine the content of his classroom instruction. Third, the defense argued the Butler Act violated the Tennessee Constitution's requirement to cherish literature and science. Their argument was evolution is a recognized scientific theory and banning its instruction was inconsistent with the obligation.
RemiThey're reaching here.
AshleyAnd the court agreed with you. They reasoned that determining how the state should promote science and education was a question for the legislature, not the court. Finally, the defense argued the Butler Act violated Tennessee's constitutional prohibition against establishing a state religion. The court again disagreed, finding that the statute didn't require schools to teach any particular religious doctrine. It merely disallowed teachers from presenting evolution in a way that contradicted the biblical account of creation. So in the end, the appellate court upheld the constitutionality of the Butler Act, but they overturned Scopes's conviction on a technicality. Under Tennessee law at the time, the jury, not the judge, was responsible for setting the fine. Because Judge Ralston imposed the $100 penalty himself, the court ruled the conviction couldn't stand. It also recommended against a retrial, stating that doing so would, quote, no longer be in service of the state. We have seen nothing to be gained by prolonging the life of this bizarre case. End quote.
RemiYeah, basically saying this whole thing was a waste of time.
AshleyAnd the Tennessee Attorney General quickly announced that there would be no retrial. With Scopes' conviction overturned, there was nothing for the defense to carry to the U.S. Supreme Court. There was nothing for them to appeal. It was a frustrating ending for the ACLU and Scopes' attorneys. They accused Tennessee of intentionally avoiding a higher court review, calling the decision, quote, a subterfuge on the part of the state of Tennessee to prevent the legality of the law under which Scope was convicted being tested by the Supreme Court. Strong words. Scopes also expressed disappointment. So the Scopes trial may have ended, but the fight over evolution was far, far from over. In the two years that followed, efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution appeared in more state legislatures than ever before. In the fall of 1925, Texas instructed its state textbook commission to remove references to evolution from high school biology texts. The policy had lasting consequences for years. It forced textbook publishers to create special editions of their biology books specifically for the Texas market and later for much of the South. Tennessee took a similar approach. The textbook commission removed a civic biology from its approved list of academic texts. A year later, the publisher revised editions of the book sold in parts of the South by removing its six-page section on evolution entirely. A paragraph on natural selection remained, but the language was softened. Statements became phrases like Darwin suggested, Darwin believed, or Darwin said. School boards throughout the South followed suit, restricting or eliminating any mention of evolution in their instructional materials. In early 1926, Mississippi became the second state to pass an anti-evolution law, followed by Arkansas in 1928. Although these laws were on the books, no other teacher was ever charged for violating them. Meanwhile, attempts to pass similar restrictions in northern states failed. Efforts to ban evolution outside of the South were met with strong opposition and embarrassing defeat. I'm just going to assume that Oregon was one of them.
RemiLet's hope, though Oregon has its own sordid past.
AshleyNearly three decades after the Scopes trial, the story received a dramatic reinvention. Inherit the Wind premiered on Broadway in early in 1955. As you mentioned, Remy, the play never intended to be a historically accurate retelling of the Scopes trial. It was written as an allegory to a more recent controversy, McCarthyism. Playwrights Jerome Lauren and Robert Lee saw clear parallels between McCarthyism and the Scopes trial. To them, both represented government efforts to restrict intellectual freedom and punish people for challenging popular beliefs.
RemiThe only difference is one was real and the other was a publicity stunt.
AshleyI mean, the trial started as a publicity stunt, but what came from it was a huge debate on science versus religion.
RemiIt did bring the debate to the forefront of American culture at the time.
AshleyAnd to make the connection between McCarthyism and what happened during the Scopes trial clearer, three major changes were made from the original story. First, as we saw at the beginning of the movie, Keats, the fictionalized version of John Scopes, was dragged out of his classroom by angry citizens and actually thrown in jail for teaching evolution. This heightens the sense that he's a victim of government outreach. Second, Henry Drummond, aka Darrow, is elevated into the moral center of the story, a heroic defender of reason, free thought, and individual liberty. Matthew Harrison Brady, aka William Jennings Bryan, was also transformed. Rather than opposing only the teaching of evolution, he denounces all science as godless. Also, as you mentioned, he collapses during a grand speech at the end after becoming overwhelmed by his own contradictions. For playwrights Lawrence and Lee, Brady's downfall was symbolic. His on-stage death represented what they believe happened to McCarthyism, a movement built on fear and baseless accusations that collapsed under the weight of public ridicule.
RemiThat's quite a metaphor.
AshleyAs you also mentioned, John Scopes attended the United States premiere of Inherent the Win in Dayton, and he went on to promote it across the country. He acknowledged that the film wasn't entirely accurate, but praised it for capturing the spirit of the conflict. Sue Hicks, the young prosecutor who helped bring the case against Scopes in Robinson's drugstore decades earlier, was the only other major participant to attend the premiere. He called the film a travesty on William Jennings Bryan.
RemiHe's not portrayed very well in the film as Brady.
AshleyInherit the Wind became the most influential portrayal of the Scopes Trial. For decades, teachers used it to educate students on the cultural conflicts of the 1920s. In 1994, the National Center for History in Schools included the Scopes Trial and Inherit the Wind among recommended topics used to help students understand the competing perspectives of the era. Glad to know my high school uh did not listen to this recommendation.
RemiMine didn't either, so don't feel too bad.
AshleyBeginning in 1948, a series of Supreme Court decisions began reshaping the constitutional landscape surrounding religion and public education. Over time, they expanded First Amendment protections so states couldn't pass laws that violated free speech or religious freedom. The shift began with the court striking down religious instruction in public schools in 1948, followed by decisions prohibiting school-sponsored prayer in 1962 and mandatory Bible readings in 1963.
RemiMandatory Bible readings. Which they should not.
AshleyAt the same time, Cold War anxieties were changing America's approach to science education. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, many feared the U.S. was falling behind technologically.
RemiThis is the space race because Russia was the first country to get a satellite into space.
AshleyWell, in response to that, Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which provided federal funding for science, math, and foreign language education. The legislation also encouraged the National Science Foundation to support the development of modern textbooks designed to bring American classrooms up to date. Susan Epperson, a 10th grade biology teacher in Little Rock, agreed to serve as plaintiff. So this is in civil court. A year later, Tennessee teacher Gary Thomas threatened to challenge the Butler Act after being fired from his temporary teaching position for telling students that the Bible was a bunch of fairy tales. Both challenges were referred to as Scopes II and brought the original trial back into the public zeitgeist. John Scopes spoke out in support of both. The ACLU offered to assist Thomas with his threatened lawsuit. Sixty Tennessee teachers and the National Science Teachers Association joined as co-plaintiffs when he filed his challenge in federal court on May 15, 1967, and Tennessee repealed the Butler Act two days later. Good on them. Two weeks after that, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld their own anti-evolution statute, declaring it, quote, a valid exercise of the state's power to specify the curriculum in its public schools. The organizations and people who rallied behind Thomas in Tennessee shifted their attention to Susan Epperson's appeal. For the first
Supreme Court Rulings Change Schools
Ashleytime, the ACLU had a direct path to challenge anti-evolution statutes in front of the Supreme Court.
RemiWhich is really what they've wanted this entire time.
AshleyOh, it's what they wanted from the second they filed their call for action in that Chattanooga, Tennessee paper. And they got it. In 1968, Epperson v. Arkansas, in a 7-2 ruling, struck down Arkansas's anti-evolution law.
RemiBetter late than never.
AshleyThe Supreme Court's ruling wasn't that evolution had to be taught, nor that the state was required to endorse any specific scientific theory. Instead, they focus on why the law existed in the first place. The justices concluded Arkansas singled out evolution because of religious opposition to the theory. By banning the teaching of evolution while leaving other scientific theories essentially untouched, the state advanced a particular religious viewpoint, that creation, as described in the Bible, should receive special protection in public schools. After 43 years, the battle that began with John Scopes finally reached its conclusions. No state could ban the teaching of evolution simply because it conflicted with certain religious beliefs. Although Eberson v. Arkansas made outright bans on teaching evolution unconstitutional, the debate was far from over. Instead of trying to bar evolution entirely, lawmakers pursued a new strategy, requiring schools to give equal time to creationism and evolution.
RemiThat's not confusing at all.
AshleyWell, the argument shifted from don't teach evolution to all right, if you're gonna teach evolution, you also have to teach the biblical account of creation.
RemiThese are conflicting things that should not be taught in the same place.
AshleyThree states, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Louisiana, adopted versions of these equal treatment mandates before the Supreme Court struck them down. In 1987, the court ruled in Edwards v. Aguilard that Louisiana's law requiring creation science to be taught alongside evolution was unconstitutional because its primary purpose was to advance a particular religious belief. It would be nice to say that that settled the debate once and for all. Wouldn't it? But it didn't. History just loves repeating itself. During the 1994 elections, Tennessee once again proposed new legislation aimed at restricting the teaching of evolution in public schools.
RemiTennessee is really persistent with this.
AshleySimilar efforts emerged in Alabama and Georgia, none of which were successful, by the way.
RemiThank God.
AshleySo it's pretty clear that the infamy of Scopes v. Tennessee long surpassed the trial itself. Decades later, whenever new legal battles over evolution and public education emerged, the media immediately drew comparisons, labeling them Scopes 2, Son of Scopes, or something similar.
RemiSecond Scopes.
AshleyOne week. After Tennessee's 1994 proposed legislation restricting the teaching of evolution was defeated, Inherit the Win was revived on Broadway. This time with William Jennings Bryant's character appearing fatter and more disreputable than before. If you ever find yourself in Dayton, Tennessee, make sure to visit the Ray County Heritage and Scopes Trial Museum, located in the basement of the courthouse where the famous 1925 trial took place. If dramatic entertainment is more your thing, go in July for the annual Scopes Festival, which features live trial reenactments and celebrates the transformation of a small Tennessee town into the center of a national debate. And that is the true story of Stanley Kramer's Inherit the Wind. Woo! What'd you think about that, Remy? That was a lot of history, so much history.
RemiI feel like this is an important issue, but it was also an issue that no one was really taking seriously at the time, and they were just trying to tackle it before it potentially got out of control.
AshleyNo one but the ACLU, which the entire time they were trying to get Darrow and that defense team kicked off the trial. From the second he announced he was joining to even the appellate process, they did not want him or anyone associated with him on the case because they were taking it very, very, very seriously.
RemiThankfully, the ACLU eventually was able to bring this to the Supreme Court and put an end to this because I'm gonna say something that may be considered controversial. I think that there should be a separation between church and state. But that's just me.
AshleyI mean, it's in the Constitution for a reason. Our founding fathers even agreed with you.
RemiWell, I think that both of us still have a lot to say about this movie and the true story, but before we dive into that, let's do our objection of the week.
Objection Of The Week
Henry DrummondYour Honor, I object! And why is that, Mr. Eden? Because it's devastating to my case! Overrule. Good call!
AshleyRemy, I'll let you kick us off with this one because you have been itching and itching to say this since I'm pretty sure like the second paragraph of my portion.
RemiYeah, I wrote down my objection at the beginning of your story because it's a pretty meaningless one, and it fits our criteria of a change made that is totally pointless. So in real life, Brian ran for president three times. In the film, Brady only ran for president twice. That's my objection. That is unnecessary. And yeah, over to you, Ashley.
AshleyThat would also be mine because you picked it. I'm not gonna double down and just say, well, I guess we both agree and win. I'll pick my second one, which is in the movie, one student testified against Kate's aka scopes at the real trial, two testified. But I'm giving it to you. That would have been my first choice, too.
RemiI bet it all on my objection. I literally did not write another thing down the entire time. So if you had gone first, it really would have left me in a predicament there. Now let us move on to the main event of our monkey podcast, our verdict.
Walter WhiteAt the conclusion of each episode, our hosts will deliver a verdict based on the film's accuracy.
Final Verdict On Film Accuracy
Walter WhiteIf the film is an honest portrayal of the events, then it will earn a not guilty verdict. If the adaptation is mostly factual, but creative liberties were taken for the sake of entertainment, the film will be declared a mistrial. But if the film ultimately strays too far from the truth, then it will be condemned as guilty and sentenced to a life behind bars.
AshleySo this one is pretty easy for me. I'm declaring this a mistrial for several reasons. First, I agree with Scopes that there's a lot that was changed here, and that's not because of Stanley Kramer. This movie is based on a play, and the creators of the play never pretended that their rendition was a historical accurate retelling. But I do think that the feel of the movie, the interactions between the two main attorneys really did capture the feeling of the debate of science versus religion in the 1920s and beyond. And the whole backbone of the trial is still there. There's a lot of changes. John Scopes was single, he wasn't arrested in class, they completely omitted the fact that the trial was initially staged. But there's also so many similarities. The overall personalities and viewpoints of the two attorneys, although they are elevated, and also the vibe of the city at the time. That's really what drew me towards mistrial. If the city at the time wasn't a circus, if there weren't people breaking out into applause and cheers and chants, I probably would have gone guilty, but that's really what happened. So because of all of those reasons, I'm getting Inherit the Wind a mistrial. What about you, Remy?
RemiI'm gonna echo a lot of what you just said, honestly. I was debating on whether or not to give this film a not guilty verdict, because a lot of the stuff is there, the chimp is there, a lot of the interactions in court. The prosecuting attorney did pass away, granted, not in such a dramatic sense, but there's a lot that was lining up. However, the reason that I'm going to ultimately give this film a mistrial is because, in reality, this was staged. This was a PR stunt. Everybody was in on it. The teacher was in on it. He wasn't arrested in class, like you mentioned, Ashley. This was just a big thing done by the ACLU to try and get rid of this pesky law that was passed in Tennessee by a mayor who seemingly didn't even really believe in it or think it was going to be enforced in order to get votes from a certain demographic. However, the ACLU thought that this could potentially spread and become problematic. And it turns out they were right. After this case blew up in their face, it began being passed in other states and turned into more of a thing than it should have. Thankfully, they stepped in and took care of it. But all of that is omitted. There is no ACLU in the film. And I think if this film was tackled today from the standpoint of how it really went down, it would have to be a comedy. Everything that occurred is ridiculous. And it is a brilliant film, but in the end, it is not accurately capturing how absurd this entire thing
Next Episode Tease And Requests
Remiwas. So, yes, two mistrials. An agreement between the two of us, unlike church and state.
AshleyWhat a fun episode. This is one you were kind of dreading, and I just kind of had it in my gut at the very beginning that this was gonna be lighthearted. It just fit so well after a very, very intense episode two weeks ago, and what I'm sure is going to be a completely different episode in two weeks. Remy, what are we gonna be covering?
RemiTwo weeks from now, we will be covering probably the most famous serial killer of all time, Jack the Ripper, in the film From Hell, starring Johnny Depp, based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore, which I will also be reading for the episode.
AshleyI do want to interject here that we might pivot and just throw in an unexpected bonus episode next week, because Jack the Ripper is a serial killer from the 1800s, so there is a lot, a lot, a lot of information. So we will either be talking about this in two weeks or in four.
RemiEither way, it's gonna be worth listening to. There's a ton to cover. I mean, Jack the Ripper, Johnny Depp. And because this is probably one of the longest unsolved series of murders ever, it might take us a little bit longer to cover all of the details and do all the research needed for this. We're gonna try. We thankfully got this one out on time, but we are running a little bit behind schedule. So there may be a surprise bonus episode next week, or there could be from hell and a likely long talk about Jack the Ripper.
AshleyAnd as usual, stay tuned at the end for a little clip from the trailer of From Hell. And please, please, if you like what you're hearing, do all the things, rate, review, subscribe on whatever podcast platform you listen to, or just, you know, tell a friend. Either way, we would love it and it would help us immensely.
RemiAnd until then, court is adjourned.
From Hell (trailer)Inspector, I know your reputation for making brilliant guesses that turn out to be right. Someone
Trailer Clip And Adjournment
From Hell (trailer)told me you claimed to dream the answers. Sometimes Steven of Bangkell was smarter than George Young. That doesn't sound much out of the ordinary. He must be someone with money. Our union friends were to space up and so.
