There is a lot to say about Inherit the Wind (1999), but I will start with the Scripture from which the title is derived.  It is Proverbs 11:29, and the whole verse reads, “Those who trouble their household inherit the wind, and fools become slaves to the wise of heart.”  What this is all refers to is a film based on a 1925 court case in the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, that is one of the more significant legal proceedings in modern history.  Parenthetically, it should be noted that it is now a few days past the exact 100-year anniversary of what is commonly referred to as the “Scopes Monkey Trial.”  As a historian and a practicing Catholic, I would love it if everyone were familiar with The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes.  Since few people pay attention to such things, sadly, there are movies to help one gain some understanding of this momentous event.  I do not get why they changed the names of the relevant people involved, but it is something.

The first person involved in the name changing in Inherit the Wind (1999) is the one after whom the actual trial is titled, Bertram “Bert” T. Cates (Tom Everett Scott).  He is a teacher in another appellation switch, this time of the town, in this case it being called Hillsboro.  As he is talking about Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species, various leading citizens enter his classroom and arrest him.  His crime is violating the Butler Act, a Tennessee law prohibiting the presentation of anything other than the Bible for the development of mankind.  Though he is aware of the violation, he feels he has done no wrong and plans on fighting the charges.  This means a public hearing and an opportunity to test the validity of a precept specifically designed to prop up a singular viewpoint for everything, in this case the Bible.  The plot thickens when we see that Bert’s fiancée is Rachel Brown (Kathryn Morris), daughter of Reverend Brown (Lane Smith), local pastor and vehement defender of the Sola Scriptura position.  She pleads with her father that Bert is a good man, but Reverend Brown has other reasons for animosity towards his daughter’s suitor.  As we learn later, Bert had spoken out against the preacher for condemning to eternal punishment an area boy who had drown because the young one had not been baptized.  As such, Reverend Brown sees Bert as just as evil, to Rachel’s horror.  She is further shaken when former presidential candidate and gifted lawyer and orator, Matthew Harrison Brady (George C. Scott), arrives to be a part of the prosecution.  It is a sign of the attention the proceedings are garnering, and it gets more when the person who comes to Bert’s defense is Henry Drummond (Jack Lemmon).  Henry had been, at times, a supporter of Matthew’s, but the two had drifted apart in their old age.  More simply, Henry is the atheist and Matthew the man of God.  These differences form the basis of their gentlemanly, but pointed, sparring from the beginning, including over how to select jury members.  Once the case begins to be tried, it is the prosecution who first calls witnesses.  They include Howard (Steve Monroe), one of Bert’s students, though Henry does a good job of undercutting the teenager’s honest account of Bert’s lessons.  The key person to take the stand for Matthew is Rachel.  In her testimony, she discloses Bert’s stances that are deemed in opposition to her father’s.  It does no favors for the defense, though she continues to protest her love for her fiancé.  He returns the gesture when Henry goes to cross examine her in her distraught state, but Bert requests that she be excused.  When it comes time for Henry to present his side, he at first hopes to look to a number scientific experts from universities across the nation.  One-by-one they are objected to and denied on the grounds that their insights would provide little relevance to the case at hand.  It is an infuriating setback for Henry, who lashes out at the court, Judge Coffey (John Cullum), and various citizens gathered in the room to observe the proceedings, for their inability to think for themselves.  Such are the passions surrounding this outburst that Henry is held in contempt of court.  As a final gesture, he vows to resign from the case.  In a sign that opinions may be turning, members of the audience offer up surety for his bail.  Touched by the gesture, Henry continues in his position.  Since all the other authorities he had hoped to call had been denied, Henry turns to Matthew to take the stand.  Despite the irregularity of the proposition, Matthew steps to the docket believing anything he will say will help his side.  Henry then proceeds to use the Bible to call into question the logic of using only Scripture in order to interpret the world around us.  Increasingly, Matthew’s response to seeming contradictions that, basically, amount to just being how God says things are ring hollow.  The final blow is when Henry suggests that Matthew’s so-called “authority” on all matters Biblical is the result of God personally commanding the former presidential candidate on all subjects.  As a Catholic, I found this less compelling because such a scenario is possible, but it works because of the narrow-mindedness of Matthew’s position.  Nonetheless, the jury still finds Bert guilty.  Seeking to put the ordeal behind them, Judge Coffey hands down a fine of $100, which Henry vows to appeal.  The sentence is also outrageous to Matthew, who wanted to see Bert be made an example of, preceded by one of the famous orator’s fiery speeches.  In Matthew’s agitation, he collapses as the courtroom is emptying and dies a few hours later.

The final scene in Inherit the Wind (1999) sees Henry having a heated discussion with E. K. Hornbeck (Beau Bridges), a reporter from Baltimore covering the trial.  Hornbeck, scornful of the Hillsboro rubes and their Bible thumping ways, sees hypocrisy in Henry’s disquiet over Matthew’s death.  Henry does a Christian thing in honoring Matthew, a man who had sometimes been a foe, sometimes a friend.  If only we could all treat those we consider enemies with the same level of respect.  At the same time, Matthew’s behavior is not Christian in a particularly Catholic way.  Towards the end, being shaken by the way Henry had been able swing some of the sentiment in his favor, Matthew believes through the power of his words that he can make people see his truth.  Faith is not about being forced to believe anything.  The Church teaches that true belief comes from within.  In this way, we can brook with systems like evolution, which the Church does not specifically deny, and still hold to the conviction that God is real.  Indeed, I have often said in other reviews that Catholicism and science are not antithetical to one another.  Today, I was given a reminder of this while listening to a podcast about Roger Bacon, a thirteenth century Catholic monk who combined religion and rigorous research, all ordered under God.  However, the biggest difference with what Matthew professes and what the Church avows is in the phrase Sola Scriptura, which I used to describe Reverend Brown’s take on the Bible.  It is Latin for “Scripture Only,” and those who take this position believe all sorts of things that science plainly proves is impossible.  An example of this is when he talks about certain Biblical scholars fixing the time of Creation to a day and time in October of 4004 BC.  Henry seizes upon this Genesis calculation, asking if the sun had not been brought to light (pun intended) at that moment, how could they come up with the exact day.  Though it is not explicitly stated, he does roughly allude to 2 Peter 3:8, “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.”  In other words, our perception of time is not God’s.  Further, God gives us the ability to think and interpret the world around us.  Doing so is no crime, and that is the heart of the situation.

What is less germane to Inherit the Wind (1999) is the fact that this is a remake of a 1960 film.  I did not know this when I selected it, thinking it only an opportunity to talk about how Faith and science can, and do, work together.  The last point to add is that for most miracles, the Church typically looks for a scientific explanation first.  When that proves inadequate, the Divine is ascribed.  We should have no problem with that process, or this film.