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.
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.
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'.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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'.
This is Gold. Whatever side you're on. It's healthy for any society to have this discourse.
This has grown on me over the years. I still prefer the 1960s film, but this has its moments.
It's amazing to think there are still people who think like this.
100 years later and nothing has changed...
I watched Tracy and March .... And Jack and George come off 2nd Best!
I liked the original movie!
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).
Brady looks like Emperor Palpatine.
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…
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.)
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.
What a cast!
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.
"Your honor, the prosecution is BADGERING the witness!!"
I wonder if Bryan was really so terrible to her, thus eliciting of such a reaction?
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
Two terrific actors, but their lack of energy hampers this production.
Where might I find the full free movie version of this?
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.
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.
That’s Howard? The 13 year old boy?
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.
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
Is that General Patton..? 😀
Americans have barely progressed ideologically since when this was set.
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).
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.
No where close to the original
stick to the original, much much better
1:10:49