And this is so much worse than the Tracy/March version. It's (as far as I can tell) word for word the same text, but delivered without any understanding...
RIP Jack Lemmon (February 8, 1925 - June 27, 2001), aged 76 And RIP George C. Scott (October 18, 1927 - September 22, 1999), aged 71 You both will be remembered as legends.
Too young but, at least they DID get their three score and ten, and then a bit more. And of course I agree but, they are already that here. Scott put-in 'his all' on this one.
This movie was pretty interesting but its totally missing the energy that the original had. Cant really beat Frederich March's or Spencer Tracy's performance.
Yes, no fault of the actors, who do well in other productions--the casting was just so much better for the material in the earlier version. Gene Kelly was so perfect, cast against type, as the reporter.
George died five months after this was broadcast and Jack two years later. They may not have been Tracy and March but they had tremendous careers as well.
A sad reminder. George does not look well in this film. More power to him. No, they're not Tracy and March but to echo Dogberry, 'Comparisons are odorous'.
Jack Lemmon is an actor that never stopped honing his craft. Every performance gets better. I forget how good an actor George C. Scott was, he loses himself in every role.
I mean no disrespect to you when I answer your comment. The bloodiest century in history was the 20th century. Most of that bloodshed was caused by communist regimes toward their own people, communist regimes that are anti religion. So the idea that removing religion from the world would make it a better place doesn’t line up with history. The teaching of Jesus does harm anyone. (‘Love your neighbour as yourself’). Not all religion is the same.
In the version with Frederick March and Spenser Tracy, March portrayed Brady as a self-righteous blowhard, an old-time populist politician. George C Scott takes Brady to a whole-other dark place of malice and vindictiveness as would befit medieval inquisitors. Scott does this brilliantly.
Makes one think about how much we've changed and how little we've changed. This was just yesterday for all intents. Just a generation or so ago. (but we have air conditioning now as well as a finer sense of truth)
Scott and Lemon did an outstanding job every bit as good as March and Tracy. The difference is the scripts. Scott and Lemon performed the actual stage play script. March and Tracy performed the revised script for the movie which left a lot of the stage play script out because of the time constraints placed on filming. Scott suffering from a heart ailment that would end his life a few months later gave the last brilliant performance of his career. Lemon won the Emmy Award for best actor in a drama that year.
@John Pitchlynn Not true. I've played Cates in two different productions of the original play, so I know the difference. This version uses the film script, with lines such as Hornbeck's "He's the only man I've ever known who can strut sitting down" for example, which are NOT in the original play. The #1 problem here IMHO is that Lemmon is miscast. He won a Golden Globe anyway, not the Emmy. He won an Emmy for Tuesdays with Morrie.
Sorry, Scott and Lemon didn't come close to Tracy's and March's performance. Lemon didn't put the same effort into this as he did in other performances.
@davidblackburn3396 I've seen several versions of the play over the years.And there are many variations of the script out there. And many actors who have played the characters based upon Darrow and Bryant. So you MAY HAVE used the original play script and YOU MAY NOT HAVE. There have been no less than 4 films of the play and they have differences. And this not unusual in any particular play. As far as who gave the best performance is only a matter of opinion. Different actors= different styles. Different Directors = different presentation. The original play had Paul Muni, Ed Begley and Tony Randall premiering in 1955. So you may not used the original script. Lemon was not miscast and just because you say so doesn't make it true.
The look of surprise on the witness' face as she's called. The dramatic sense of a surprise for effect. Witnesses in a real court of law have been informed or agreed to be a witness before the court case begins. Hollywood.
While Inherent the Wind is a terrific play and movie(s), I highly recommend seeing the documentary American Experience: Monkey Trial (PBS, 17-Feb-2002). The trial actually began life as a publicity stunt. The “Town Fathers” (businessmen and politicians) wanted a show or event to draw in tourists. John T. Scopes volunteered to be the defendant. The appearance of high profile legal luminaries William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow was not planned. And the arguments about religion vs. science were more nuanced. Brady/Bryan was presented as the “villain” in the play. In fact, he made valid points. (He had concerns about the social damage caused by the influence of the ideas of Darwin, such as the Eugenics movements.)
Darwins idea was that the environment shapes and directs the evolution of the species. The problem with linking the idea of evolution of the fittest to eugenics, is that once man mastered fire, and had invented the wheel, man began to change the environment to his benefit and not the other way around. From that point on, man stepped outside Darwins theory and eugenics became a useless idea.
@@JanBruunAndersen Okay, I see the point you’re making. Interesting. Man began to alter the environment in which he lived, as opposed to - shall we say - passively dwelling in it. Man would play a role in his evolution. If I understand you correctly.
When law went beyond it's calling and decided to become the declarer of absolute truth rather than the best efforts at agreeing on what appears to be truth by faulty people who could never know absolute truth.
ingibingi2000, are you referring to Richard Dawkins? And to which Tyson are you referring? The adversaries in the actual case were Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan.
This is, unfortunately, sad. Even worse than the Jason Robards remake 11 years earlier with a woefully miscast Kirk Douglas as Brady. And I love "Inherit the Wind" - we NEED it in our lives. Need to discuss and understand its themes. But this...possibly the greatest collection of actors I've ever seen making absolutely no impact with Lawrence & Lee's powerful script. Poor George C. Scott actively appears to be dying here, with only his inimitable voice left of his legendary presence, as he shuffles to get to his mark and fails to hide the alcohol-induced early tremors in his extremities. Lemmon, even at his advanced age, is too buoyant and not craggy enough to approximate Clarence Darrow. John Cullum has left his mark on TV like "The Middle" and "The Day After," but here he has one note as the judge (which Harry Morgan proved can be a meaty role). Lane Smith as the preacher makes one wary but doesn't strike any fear in the audience's heart, as the role requires. This play can be great but requires strong stage presences and assertive direction - and this version is bereft of both of those qualities. Bertram Cates and Hornbeck are completely fogettable cutouts here. At least 1987 could recommend Darren McGavin besting even Gene Kelly in the H.L. Mencken scene-stealer. Beau Bridges - miles away from "The Fabulous Baker Boys," the best of so much better work he's done - just doesn't pass the snark test here at all.
I didn't think it was as bad as you say, and I imagine that in a world where Tracy and March didn't make their version, this would be a very impressive affair indeed. Unfortunately for their version, but most fortunate for humanity at large, we don't live in such a world.
This is fine. The same lines, but this shows just how much Marcsh and Tracy carried the movie. Also, thr guy playing Drummond really lacks the charisma, timing and presence of Tracy.
Looked up the word "jactitation" and that is (of course) not a definition of the word. Google defines it as "the restless tossing of the body in illness". Not even close to ".. a false claim .." #smh
I wonder if the misuse of the word is intended to demonstrate (a) the arrogance and contempt of the prosecution and/or (b) the provincial nature of the judge, the courtroom, and the town...
This movie didn’t bring out the raw emotion of the older version with Spencer and Fredric. There was so much emotion when Tracy questioned March on the witness stand. Not taking anything away from Jack and George, but they just could not licit the raw emotion.
Well, to be fair, in the court, you are supposed to be cool, calm, and collected and show not so much emotion, so the fact that they aren’t showing as much raw emotion is pretty accurate. My mother is a lawyer so I do have experience. I do feel the emotion here, it’s just a lot more subtle and repressed than that version. I honestly think that for a trial as complex as this one was, I think a miniseries would be the way to tackle it.
The cast and direction of the original makes this look tired and almost amateurish by comparison. Tracy, March, Kelly, York, Morgan, Eldridge, Anderson, are only a few of the outstanding actors and actresses who brought that film to life through Kramer's amazing guidance. Or maybe I'm just old and familiar. Then again, I'm familiar with Lemmon, and Scott, so maybe not.
If "Darwinism" were taught for what it is; a THEORY, with zero true science behind it, there would be no controversy! Darwinism is built on a series of philosophical assumptions. Many of which have no basis in fact. So, it is just as much a Religious Faith as any other. We all make choice in life. Believe what you want to. But PLEASE, don't force your screw ball believes on me and my children 🙂
When people say that "Darwinismen" is a theory, the theory of evolution, it is a sign of humbleness. A sign that this idea, this theory, might be proven wrong some time in the future if contradicting evidence shows up. Compare that to the hybris of religious people who claim, with no doubt whatsoever, that they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about how all the worlds animals, and man, were created. You would do well to consider the words of your Lord in the Proverbs 11:2: "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom."
You realize that calling something 'just a theory' in science is actually as high as a concept can go in science, right? And when you say evolution is just a theory you reveal your ignorance
And evolution has a LOT of science behind it, unlike your religious garbage. It's a fact that two million years ago there were no homo sapiens walking on Earth. 85 million years ago there was nothing even resembling primates on Earth. There is not the slightest evidence behind the 7 day creation, talking snakes, the Flood, the Tower of Babel and much of the other claptrap in the Bible. Even Jesus's existence was not noteworthy enough for the Romans to record it. Please dont force your screwball belieFS on me or my children.
A Theory in science is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It doesn't mean a guess although that's how laws of nature start out. As Richard Feynman once famously said, "First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". There's a clip of it on UA-cam somewhere.
When you produce a remake of an all time classic no matter how good, it will still exist in the shadow of the original.
Inherit the Wind has been remade several times. Tracy and March set a high bar.
And this is so much worse than the Tracy/March version. It's (as far as I can tell) word for word the same text, but delivered without any understanding...
If you produce a remake, it has to be better than the original or else it's a pointless exercise in vanity.
Yes. It’s tough to do.
This was made when society agreed about Evolution. Times change backwards in America
RIP Jack Lemmon (February 8, 1925 - June 27, 2001), aged 76
And
RIP George C. Scott (October 18, 1927 - September 22, 1999), aged 71
You both will be remembered as legends.
Truly
Too young but, at least they DID get their three score and ten, and then a bit more.
And of course I agree but, they are already that here.
Scott put-in 'his all' on this one.
This is George C.Scott's last performance.
Jack Lemmon was great in Glen Garry Glen Ross
someone always has to rush in and make the death post. every. single. time.
This movie was pretty interesting but its totally missing the energy that the original had. Cant really beat Frederich March's or Spencer Tracy's performance.
True that!
So true. Through no fault of George C. Scott or Jack Lemmon, the original 1960 version had so much raw emotion & appeal.
Can't beat Gene Kelly and Spencer Tracy
Great movie, but half of it isn't true...
Yes, no fault of the actors, who do well in other productions--the casting was just so much better for the material in the earlier version. Gene Kelly was so perfect, cast against type, as the reporter.
You'll get know argument from me re Tracy/March. But an argument can be made that Lemmon/Scott make a formidable match.
George died five months after this was broadcast and Jack two years later. They may not have been Tracy and March but they had tremendous careers as well.
A sad reminder. George does not look well in this film. More power to him. No, they're not Tracy and March but to echo Dogberry, 'Comparisons are odorous'.
Great comments, both yours & Mr. Wayne’s! Kudos to you both.
Jack Lemmon is an actor that never stopped honing his craft. Every performance gets better. I forget how good an actor George C. Scott was, he loses himself in every role.
Prisoner of Second Avenue was his best.
This is Gold. Whatever side you're on. It's healthy for any society to have this discourse.
Always repeated by all sane Normals.... even social Platforms censor thinking.
It's amazing to think there are still people who think like this.
you mean evolution being truth and non-prove-able?
If you're referring to evolution having no sound logic, then yes...we still can't believe people think like this.
This has grown on me over the years. I still prefer the 1960s film, but this has its moments.
"Yes! Man must be afforded the right to think" What are we seeing today that resembles the era of the "Scopes Monkey Trial"
How much simpler and safer the world would be without religion.
I mean no disrespect to you when I answer your comment. The bloodiest century in history was the 20th century. Most of that bloodshed was caused by communist regimes toward their own people, communist regimes that are anti religion. So the idea that removing religion from the world would make it a better place doesn’t line up with history. The teaching of Jesus does harm anyone. (‘Love your neighbour as yourself’). Not all religion is the same.
Jack Lemon and George C Scott two great actors from a time when movies were still great.
Patton was a great movie. George C Scott was also good in Dr Strangelove.
Bonzai Bopfest But here, he looks like a creepy, angry old nutjob instead of Matthew Brady (i.e. William Jennings Bryan).
I watched Tracy and March .... And Jack and George come off 2nd Best!
It doesn't get much better than that. The days when there was real acting and actors and great original writing.
Americans have barely progressed ideologically since when this was set.
I liked the original movie!
Scott played this role to perfection. Absolute master class.
In the version with Frederick March and Spenser Tracy, March portrayed Brady as a self-righteous blowhard, an old-time populist politician. George C Scott takes Brady to a whole-other dark place of malice and vindictiveness as would befit medieval inquisitors. Scott does this brilliantly.
Brady looks like Emperor Palpatine.
Makes one think about how much we've changed and how little we've changed. This was just yesterday for all intents. Just a generation or so ago. (but we have air conditioning now as well as a finer sense of truth)
Scott and Lemon did an outstanding job every bit as good as March and Tracy. The difference is the scripts. Scott and Lemon performed the actual stage play script. March and Tracy performed the revised script for the movie which left a lot of the stage play script out because of the time constraints placed on filming. Scott suffering from a heart ailment that would end his life a few months later gave the last brilliant performance of his career. Lemon won the Emmy Award for best actor in a drama that year.
@John Pitchlynn Not true. I've played Cates in two different productions of the original play, so I know the difference. This version uses the film script, with lines such as Hornbeck's "He's the only man I've ever known who can strut sitting down" for example, which are NOT in the original play. The #1 problem here IMHO is that Lemmon is miscast. He won a Golden Globe anyway, not the Emmy. He won an Emmy for Tuesdays with Morrie.
Sorry, Scott and Lemon didn't come close to Tracy's and March's performance. Lemon didn't put the same effort into this as he did in other performances.
@davidblackburn3396 I've seen several versions of the play over the years.And there are many variations of the script out there. And many actors who have played the characters based upon Darrow and Bryant. So you MAY HAVE used the original play script and YOU MAY NOT HAVE. There have been no less than 4 films of the play and they have differences. And this not unusual in any particular play. As far as who gave the best performance is only a matter of opinion. Different actors= different styles. Different Directors = different presentation. The original play had Paul Muni, Ed Begley and Tony Randall premiering in 1955. So you may not used the original script. Lemon was not miscast and just because you say so doesn't make it true.
@@josephshields2922 You're opinion...and you know what they say about opinions...like rear ends everyone has one.
The great George C. Scott's last movie.
Paul S ...and a horrible casting decision. Scott was a great actor, but totally wrong for the role of William Jennings Bryan.
Not much has changed in the South
🤣
They’re barely wriggled out of the swamp… not much evolution down there…
please, half the people living there now are retired yankess.
Understandable sentiment, but -respectfully- not even close.
@@josephshields2922 except you and yours now have replaced Jesus with that or the antichrist Donald trump
It’s good to see Professor Fate had a fruitful career after being a dastardly villain.
I agree with some of the comments. This version with stellar people and fine backdrops lacks a certain energy and heart that Tracy and March captured.
The look of surprise on the witness' face as she's called. The dramatic sense of a surprise for effect.
Witnesses in a real court of law have been informed or agreed to be a witness before the court case begins.
Hollywood.
While Inherent the Wind is a terrific play and movie(s), I highly recommend seeing the documentary American Experience: Monkey Trial (PBS, 17-Feb-2002). The trial actually began life as a publicity stunt. The “Town Fathers” (businessmen and politicians) wanted a show or event to draw in tourists. John T. Scopes volunteered to be the defendant. The appearance of high profile legal luminaries William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow was not planned. And the arguments about religion vs. science were more nuanced. Brady/Bryan was presented as the “villain” in the play. In fact, he made valid points. (He had concerns about the social damage caused by the influence of the ideas of Darwin, such as the Eugenics movements.)
Darwins idea was that the environment shapes and directs the evolution of the species. The problem with linking the idea of evolution of the fittest to eugenics, is that once man mastered fire, and had invented the wheel, man began to change the environment to his benefit and not the other way around. From that point on, man stepped outside Darwins theory and eugenics became a useless idea.
@@JanBruunAndersen Okay, I see the point you’re making. Interesting. Man began to alter the environment in which he lived, as opposed to - shall we say - passively dwelling in it. Man would play a role in his evolution. If I understand you correctly.
March and Tracy put these dudes to utter shame.
Yes with all due respect to lemon and Scott, this version just fell flat even the actor playing the judge was less than impressive
if you like histrionics
Both great performances, but I'm personally a bit prejudiced in favor of the original
Well, at least it looks hotter in the courtroom than the original.
Where might I find the full free movie version of this?
"Your honor, the prosecution is BADGERING the witness!!"
I wonder if Bryan was really so terrible to her, thus eliciting of such a reaction?
Two terrific actors, but their lack of energy hampers this production.
What a cast!
Nice of the judge (and the defense) to allow him to wander around the court making a speech. Utter nonsense.
When law went beyond it's calling and decided to become the declarer of absolute truth rather than the best efforts at agreeing on what appears to be truth by faulty people who could never know absolute truth.
I would love to see Dawkins or tyson on the stand back in those days. Oh Except tyson couldn't
ingibingi2000, are you referring to Richard Dawkins? And to which Tyson are you referring? The adversaries in the actual case were Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan.
the witness was under stress and what the defense should asked for was a post postponement.
This is, unfortunately, sad. Even worse than the Jason Robards remake 11 years earlier with a woefully miscast Kirk Douglas as Brady. And I love "Inherit the Wind" - we NEED it in our lives. Need to discuss and understand its themes. But this...possibly the greatest collection of actors I've ever seen making absolutely no impact with Lawrence & Lee's powerful script. Poor George C. Scott actively appears to be dying here, with only his inimitable voice left of his legendary presence, as he shuffles to get to his mark and fails to hide the alcohol-induced early tremors in his extremities. Lemmon, even at his advanced age, is too buoyant and not craggy enough to approximate Clarence Darrow. John Cullum has left his mark on TV like "The Middle" and "The Day After," but here he has one note as the judge (which Harry Morgan proved can be a meaty role). Lane Smith as the preacher makes one wary but doesn't strike any fear in the audience's heart, as the role requires. This play can be great but requires strong stage presences and assertive direction - and this version is bereft of both of those qualities. Bertram Cates and Hornbeck are completely fogettable cutouts here. At least 1987 could recommend Darren McGavin besting even Gene Kelly in the H.L. Mencken scene-stealer. Beau Bridges - miles away from "The Fabulous Baker Boys," the best of so much better work he's done - just doesn't pass the snark test here at all.
I didn't think it was as bad as you say, and I imagine that in a world where Tracy and March didn't make their version, this would be a very impressive affair indeed. Unfortunately for their version, but most fortunate for humanity at large, we don't live in such a world.
I love Jack Lemmon's work ... but even the great Jack Lemmon isn't Spencer Tracey.
Is that General Patton..? 😀
“High school boy”?!
That’s Howard? The 13 year old boy?
This is fine. The same lines, but this shows just how much Marcsh and Tracy carried the movie. Also, thr guy playing Drummond really lacks the charisma, timing and presence of Tracy.
Why is it they always seem to choose actors with one foot in the grave for these two roles?
Nothing has changed in the USA. 2024
George c Scotts best movie the film flamman
original was WAAY BETTER.
Amen (ironically) to that!
Looked up the word "jactitation" and that is (of course) not a definition of the word. Google defines it as "the restless tossing of the body in illness". Not even close to ".. a false claim .." #smh
I wonder if the misuse of the word is intended to demonstrate (a) the arrogance and contempt of the prosecution and/or (b) the provincial nature of the judge, the courtroom, and the town...
Webster: “17th century. Originally, jactitation was used as a word for a false claim or assertion”. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jactitation
This movie didn’t bring out the raw emotion of the older version with Spencer and Fredric. There was so much emotion when Tracy questioned March on the witness stand. Not taking anything away from Jack and George, but they just could not licit the raw emotion.
Well, to be fair, in the court, you are supposed to be cool, calm, and collected and show not so much emotion, so the fact that they aren’t showing as much raw emotion is pretty accurate. My mother is a lawyer so I do have experience. I do feel the emotion here, it’s just a lot more subtle and repressed than that version. I honestly think that for a trial as complex as this one was, I think a miniseries would be the way to tackle it.
The high school student is what 35 or 40
Not the same energy or pace of the original
Just noticed. Not one black person in the courtroom.
Just saying.
John Stucko So what? Doesn’t matter one bit.
1930s in a small town. Duh.
no Mongolians, either
@@thepunditspundit1776 1920s
1920s AND in the deep south (Tennessee).
The cast and direction of the original makes this look tired and almost amateurish by comparison. Tracy, March, Kelly, York, Morgan, Eldridge, Anderson, are only a few of the outstanding actors and actresses who brought that film to life through Kramer's amazing guidance. Or maybe I'm just old and familiar. Then again, I'm familiar with Lemmon, and Scott, so maybe not.
No where close to the original
stick to the original, much much better
If "Darwinism" were taught for what it is; a THEORY, with zero true science behind it, there would be no controversy!
Darwinism is built on a series of philosophical assumptions. Many of which have no basis in fact. So, it is just as much a Religious Faith as any other. We all make choice in life. Believe what you want to. But PLEASE, don't force your screw ball believes on me and my children 🙂
When people say that "Darwinismen" is a theory, the theory of evolution, it is a sign of humbleness. A sign that this idea, this theory, might be proven wrong some time in the future if contradicting evidence shows up.
Compare that to the hybris of religious people who claim, with no doubt whatsoever, that they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about how all the worlds animals, and man, were created.
You would do well to consider the words of your Lord in the Proverbs 11:2:
"When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom."
You realize that calling something 'just a theory' in science is actually as high as a concept can go in science, right? And when you say evolution is just a theory you reveal your ignorance
And evolution has a LOT of science behind it, unlike your religious garbage. It's a fact that two million years ago there were no homo sapiens walking on Earth. 85 million years ago there was nothing even resembling primates on Earth. There is not the slightest evidence behind the 7 day creation, talking snakes, the Flood, the Tower of Babel and much of the other claptrap in the Bible. Even Jesus's existence was not noteworthy enough for the Romans to record it. Please dont force your screwball belieFS on me or my children.
A Theory in science is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. It doesn't mean a guess although that's how laws of nature start out. As Richard Feynman once famously said, "First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". There's a clip of it on UA-cam somewhere.
1:10:49