“Whoever brings ruin on their family will inherit only wind, and the fool will be servant to the wise.” –Proverbs 11:29, New International Version
Inherit the Wind gathered strength at the Grove Theatre Center Burbank last Friday, and delivered gale-force performances during the climactic courthouse scenes. Even if you saw the brilliant film version of this play, it is well worth a re-visit in the version presented by Wasatch Theatrical Ventures.
In Steve Peterson’s interview with Director KIFF SCHOLL, we learn that Inherit the Wind is a “re-imagination of the Scopes Monkey Trial,” which had occurred in 1925 in Dayton Tennessee. High school teacher John Scopes was on trial for teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in a public school classroom, in defiance of Tennessee’s law at that time. Mark Belnick’s program essay reminds us that nationally renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow came to Scopes’ defense. Arguing for the prosecution was the enormously popular politician William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Presidential candidate and Secretary of State under Wilson.
In the play, Drummond (played by MARK BELNICK) is the stand-in for Darrow. Brady (ROBERT CRAIGHEAD) is Byran’s. The heart of the play is the contest between the two men during the trial, and the actors nail the passions that no doubt prevailed in the Scopes Trial itself. And Cates (ROBBIE WINSTON) captured the anguish of a person about to be a criminal outcast for following the dictates of conscience.
There were other pleasures as well. The strong cast succeeded in creating the impression of a crowd scene with just 17 people, and they prevented even the most minor roles from being cardboard. A special kudos to ROSEMARY STEVENS, who played Brady’s wife as someone who knew her husband’s terrible vulnerability even as she was unable, in the end, to shield him from them.
Playwrights Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee wrote Inherit the Wind in 1955, 30 years after the Scopes trial, but when a new threat to independent thought—McCarthyism—was very much in the wind. And today the play has special relevance considering that the teaching of evolution is once again controversial issue in many states.
For me, Inherit the Wind carries a somewhat different lesson than the ones about suppression of free and independent thought (important as that lesson is.) It’s about the importence of doing your homework. Brady/Bryan lost stature not because he believed in divine creation, but because he had never bothered to read Darwin, or was even aware of alternative interpretations of Genesis. By the time Drummond/Darrow was done with him, everyone, especially the younger generation, knew that Brady/Bryan was an unfit champion of his beliefs. They would inherit nothing from him but windbag oratory.
His type of downfall does not just occur in religion or politics. Perhaps you’ve seen it in your own workplace. People who were effective in their day, but became less so as computer-based or other changes passed them by. For me, the subtext of Inherit the Wind is to understand what new winds of change are buffeting the world your children will inherit, rather than to deny that they are blowing.
Make no mistake. Modern day history confirms that there were, in fact, some people in government in the 1930’s who were Stalinist agents. That is arguably at least a partial vindication of Senator McCarthy, but not McCarthyism, which moved its adherents to refuse to read anything by Marx and which caused them to conflate the many varieties of socialism with what went on in a “degenerate worker’s state” (Marx’s term.)
Modern science, notably information theory, raises important and productive challenges to evolutionary theory (which, incidentally, has come a long way since Darwin.) But consider the person who has carefully read yesterday’s Darwin, and today’s Dawkins, yet nevertheless has reservations about the current theory of evolution. Such a person is far more a disciple of Darrow than one who refuses on the one hand, to read the arguments of creationists, or on the other hand, to forbid the teaching of evolution in the schools.
Yes, there are varieties of religion that threaten their followers with God’s wrath if they even entertain views at variance with the tenets of their faith. I guess we have to gamble, as Darrow/Drummond suggested we do, that a God would not have created minds capable of questioning unless they were intended to pose questions.
From the problem of evil to the latest thinking about the origins of the universe, it is not obvious that religion is right. And is a God that would exact trembling, unquestioning obedience a God worth worshipping? Religions who would implicitly answer “yes” by their behavior risk slandering the goodness of God.
But let us avoid setting up straw men. Many religions, and religious people, grapple with the challenges to their beliefs in honest and honorable ways.
In his program supplement Mark Belnick states, “Any suppression of the right to express what you think—with narrow exceptions to the incitement of violence—is a worse limitation on Liberty than anything the NSA does. Or is it? I know my answer. But every audience member will have to decide for themselves.” Here’s my take: Independent thought is best nurtured in privacy and if we lose that privacy, there may be no independent thoughts to express. During the trial in Inherit the Wind, the private, exploratory musings of the defendant are represented as dangerous, settled beliefs. In today’s NSA-bothered world, that may be the most relevant scene of all.
Inherit the Wind continues through Sunday, March 16. Performances Fridays and Saturdays at 8 p.m.; Sundays at 3 p.m. Buy the $25 General Admission tickets by going to www.plays411.com/inherit or by calling (323) 960-7721. The Grove Center Theatre is at 1111-B West Olive Avenue in George Izay Park. For more information, please visit www.wasatchtheatricalventures.com.
I haven’t seen this production, so I’m actually just here to comment on your amiable review. I appreciate that, in your efforts to provide a context for the work, you attempt an even-handeded exploration of ideas outside of (but raised by) the play itself.
Props for giving McCarthy “partial vindication” for the fact that modern history has proven that “some people in the government… were Stalinist agents”, but “some” still understates the truth: There were literally HUNDREDS – many of whom were in very sensitive positions and/or of major influence. This was the point of McCarthy’s mission (which often gets lost in the modern day, hysterical cries of “McCarthyism!”) – it wasn’t that communists shouldn’t be allowed in America, it’s that Stalinist communists shouldn’t be allowed to work in the American government (at, say, the state dept., the dept. of defense, etc.) Most people would have just invoked McCarthyism and moved on but you took the time to give us a more rounded glance at the history and I was appreciated.
Speaking of history – it does seem you missed an opportunity to point out that, while Inherit The Wind explores the “anguish of a person about to be a criminal outcast for following the dictates of conscience”, the actual Scopes Monkey Trial was designed as a publicity stunt deliberately staged to bring the small town of Dayton, Tennessee into the public eye (so successful was this endeavor, we are still talking about them even today). However, far from being the defiant, noble protagonist of enlightenment we find in Wind, the actual Scopes was unsure whether he had ever even taught evolution in the classroom, but he signed on to purposely incriminate himself simply because the case needed a defendant. Far from ending up a criminal outcast, despite being found guilty (a verdict that was then overturned on a technicality) Scopes came out of the trial as a minor celebrity.
None of this changes the fact that Inherit The Wind is a powerful and enduring piece, but it’s far from the historical trial that inspired its dramatic fancy.
Comments are closed.