MAGIC         PORK

Roger Ebert has a series of articles called Great Movies. Every other week, he’ll add a movie that he considers “great”. These writeups are different than his typical review. It’s more of a discussion of what makes the film so good, which sometimes means discussing the impact it had, its influences, things that can be determined better now that some time has passed. I usually don’t read them unless I’ve seen the movie because (as I discussed previously) I hate spoilers and he’ll sometimes discuss key events in the movies that I wouldn’t want revealed. He doesn’t do that for his recent reviews, but for some movies, you can’t really do an analysis of why they’re great without talking about them in detail.

His most recent “great movie” is Inherit the Wind and his writeup about it is quite good. The movie is about the Scopes monkey trial. I didn’t see the original until years later, but I happened to see some made-for-TV version of it when I was 13-14 years old and it had a pretty big impact on me. It made me think about things in ways I hadn’t thought of before at that age.

Then one day I was bored in study hall and saw a copy of the play on the bookshelf next to me (my English teacher’s room) and I read through it over the course of multiple study halls. Kind of like how I read the entirety of Al Franken’s first second book (thanks FoodMike) at Barnes & Noble over multiple visits without purchasing it. I still feel a little guilty about that, but it got to a point where “why purchase it now when I’ve already read most of it?”. I’m an extra big jerk now because I didn’t even bother to link you to Barnes & Noble’s website for a description of the book, I linked to Amazon.

But back to my story. At some point later on, I watched the original version. Both movies followed the play very closely, at least with the courtroom scenes.

Anyway, I’m boring you. The point is, Ebert doesn’t just discuss the movie, he contrasts the Scopes trial with the recent events in Dover, PA when evolution basically went on trial again. Ebert wonders if it would be harder to make a movie like this in 2005 than it was in 1960:

Brady and Drummond essentially engage in a debate between fundamentalism and the possibility that if God did create the world, he did so in more than six 24-hour days. What is astonishing in this 1960 film is the gutsy way it engages in ideas, pulls no punches in its language, and allows the characters long and impassioned speeches. There are a lot of words here, well-written and spoken, and not condescending to the audience. Both Tracy and March vent an anger and passion through their characters that ventures beyond acting into holy zeal.

I wonder if a film made today would have the nerve to question fundamentalism as bluntly as the Tracy character does.

Ebert is spot-on when discussing why creationism shouldn’t be taught in science classes:

Central to the case for “alternative” theories is a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, and isn’t. One thing it cannot do is depend on supernatural elements. That is the role of religious belief. By asking that creationism be given a place beside the theory of evolution, its supporters are asking that their beliefs be given equal standing with the scientific method. That violates the separation of church and state, as Judge Jones ruled; in claiming their science was not faith-based, he said, they lied.

Once again, if you still feel like reading it, here’s the link.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 1st, 2006 at 11:05 pm and is filed under movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.